5 ms·

The difficulty I have with this is we are now actively choosing who gets to live and who doesn't. Yes it's at a very early stage of pregnancy but it may have a

by xupybd 6y ago

The difficulty I have with this is we are now actively choosing who gets to live and who doesn't. Yes it's at a very early stage of pregnancy but it may have a profound impact on the future of all human societies. The morality of such actions should be examined thoroughly. This is far from a cure to genetic diseases it is removal of diseased individuals from the population. Any selective removal can be dangerous. If you look at China's sex selective abortions and the social pressures that is putting on their society as one example. If you look at the Nazi eugenics campaigns to see how bad it can get. I really think people need to think long and hard before they take a side on opening the Pandora's box.

Fumtumi 6y ago
And we are not doing this with a lot of other factors? Why would this be different than planed parenthood? I'm also not following that we should draw the line here just because it can be missused when you draw the line further away. I would even argue, that it is our duty to do tests as we have the means and therefore the responsibility to do so. We do know that nature is not perfect. We can't control everything before like the pill and everything while it grows (supplements, no work etc.) and after birth by helping babies which came out to early or operations etc. Why would we control everything but not this specific aspect? The general notion quite globally is, that an abortion before 3month is ethical okay for us as a society and this timeframe was not choosen through some random events. It probably evolved.
RHSeeger 6y ago
> choosing who gets to live and who doesn't It's worth noting that, to many people, someone that isn't born yet isn't a "who" at all yet. That is, in my opinion, why we see such a large gap in opinion between "pro life" and "pro choice"; (many of) the former think of it as killing, (many of) the later don't see the unborn as a distinct life, just another part of the mother. That disconnect leads to a lot of talking past each other.
lotu 6y ago
I think there is a pretty clear distinction, in that wide spread sex selective abortion results in a skewed gender population which causes obvious negative long term problems. It is very reasonable for a person to look at a society and say “we need increase the number of girls born”. We might have to discuss what is the best way to reach that goal but it is a reasonable goal to have. While I think saying “we need increase the number of people born with Down Syndrome” is never a morally defensible position.
- striking 6y ago
  I don't think anyone's arguing "we need increase the number of people born with Down Syndrome". It's instead asking ourselves if we intend to consciously terminate the lives of those who could still live meaningful lives regardless of whether or not they have it. I don't think "we should decrease the number of people born with Down Syndrome" is a morally defensible position in and of itself either.
  - davvolun 6y ago
    You seriously don't think "we should decrease the number of people born with Down Syndrome" is a morally defensible position either? I don't think "we should decrease the number of people born homosexual" is a morally defensible position, but decreasing incidence of Down Syndrome, or autism, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, are absolutely morally defensible positions, and in fact, are regularly done -- people everywhere socially discourage pregnant mothers from drinking alcohol, for example, and I don't think the discouraging third-parties are the ones who are in the wrong in that situation. I think having a child AT ALL, regardless of any other concerns, is an individual decision that should be made by mature, capable adults. I don't think it's necessarily a "morally defensible position" to have a third kid when you're struggling to take care of the previous two just because you belong to a religion that thinks prophylactics are immoral, and I would never, for example, judge a potential parent who decided to terminate a pregnancy because they were told it is unlikely their child will be born alive, and even if it is, would be unlikely to live for long.
    - striking 6y ago
      Yeah, I'm not arguing abortion is bad. I'm saying that we should deeply consider the morality of choosing to do it in such cases, because people with Down Syndrome or autism or other such differences can totally lead reasonably healthy and happy lives. Nowhere did I claim that it is reasonable to "judge a potential parent who decided to terminate a pregnancy because they were told it is unlikely their child will be born alive" (in fact, I'm Polish and am horrified at the new law recently passed in the country in which I was born, which specifically intends to do away with this specific act). I think it's fine if you can't support another kid because you can't support another kid. I think it's fine if your kid won't live because your kid won't live. But people with Down Syndrome and autism do live. And I think we should strongly consider the morality of the situation before going down that road. If someone is already struggling enough as it is keeping their lives together and finds out that this is the case, I would at least say it's more defensible than otherwise, because it is indeed harder to provide for some kids. But all kids are hard to provide for in their own way, and perhaps that person shouldn't be having kids anyway if that's the case. After all, we can't ever test for everything; it's entirely possible still to have a kid with something that can't be tested. And people do discourage pregnant mothers from drinking, because that's an easy step to take to ensure higher chances of a happy and healthy baby. It's a false equivalence to compare that to terminating a potential life. I won't judge people for their decisions. They have their reasons for doing what they'll do. And I'm absolutely unabashedly pro-choice. And of course I would have a hard time dealing with hearing that my kid will end up having Downs or whatever. But I think there is an aspect of morality to consider here, and the plain-and-simple "we should decrease the number of people born with Down Syndrome", presented without exception (as you put it, "absolutely"), does not fit my view. It's too close to eugenics for my taste.
dogma1138 6y ago
This isn’t new, either nature took care of things in the past or people did... We’ve essentially only had a few decades when it was not possible to identify these conditions in the womb and society was able and willing to support these individuals and allow them to live on. Realistically in the past these children would’ve been killed by their parents either directly or through abandonment and those who weren’t often didn’t survive through adulthood especially once their parents have passed.
- xupybd 6y ago
  Yes some Greek societies left the weak babies to die from exposure others put their children on the alter in the hopes of better crop yields. Because it has been done in the past doesn't justify it now.
  - dogma1138 6y ago
    You don’t need to go that far throughout history, children with severe mental or physical disabilities didn’t live long even half a century ago even in most developed nations they would be abandoned and for those that weren’t society didn’t had the facilities to support them. Down and autism today seems so much more common simply because these individuals get the chance to live to and through adulthood. These conditions don’t only affect people’s mental abilities they have a plethora of other health issues too. 75% of people with Down syndrome that die die from respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses as they suffer from immune system issues and frequent inflammation, with the current pandemic a lot of them have died because if they do get infected they are severely affected. https://err.ersjournals.com/content/26/143/160098 https://err.ersjournals.com/content/26/143/160098 Before modern medicine and the flu jab many of them wouldn’t survive a harsh flu season... Heck before we knew what Down syndrome was most of them probably perished as infants from infections that healthy individuals would just shrug off.
the8472 6y ago
> China's sex selective abortions [...] Nazi eugenics campaigns Those are organizations in charge of the trolley lever. How about putting the would-be parents in charge and keeping the organizations out?
flukus 6y ago
> I really think people need to think long and hard before they take a side on opening the Pandora's box. The box was opened 40 years ago at least, as a fetus I was screened due to a down syndrome older sister. > This is far from a cure to genetic diseases it is removal of diseased individuals from the population 100% of down syndrome men and 30-50% of women are infertile. Throw in dating challenges and issue regarding consent and theses genes aren't going to last long anyway.

by xupybd 6y ago

Fumtumi 6y ago

And we are not doing this with a lot of other factors? Why would this be different than planed parenthood? I'm also not following that we should draw the line here just because it can be missused when you draw the line further away. I would even argue, that it is our duty to do tests as we have the means and therefore the responsibility to do so. We do know that nature is not perfect. We can't control everything before like the pill and everything while it grows (supplements, no work etc.) and after birth by helping babies which came out to early or operations etc. Why would we control everything but not this specific aspect? The general notion quite globally is, that an abortion before 3month is ethical okay for us as a society and this timeframe was not choosen through some random events. It probably evolved.

RHSeeger 6y ago

> choosing who gets to live and who doesn't It's worth noting that, to many people, someone that isn't born yet isn't a "who" at all yet. That is, in my opinion, why we see such a large gap in opinion between "pro life" and "pro choice"; (many of) the former think of it as killing, (many of) the later don't see the unborn as a distinct life, just another part of the mother. That disconnect leads to a lot of talking past each other.

lotu 6y ago

I think there is a pretty clear distinction, in that wide spread sex selective abortion results in a skewed gender population which causes obvious negative long term problems. It is very reasonable for a person to look at a society and say “we need increase the number of girls born”. We might have to discuss what is the best way to reach that goal but it is a reasonable goal to have. While I think saying “we need increase the number of people born with Down Syndrome” is never a morally defensible position.

striking 6y ago
I don't think anyone's arguing "we need increase the number of people born with Down Syndrome". It's instead asking ourselves if we intend to consciously terminate the lives of those who could still live meaningful lives regardless of whether or not they have it. I don't think "we should decrease the number of people born with Down Syndrome" is a morally defensible position in and of itself either.
- davvolun 6y ago
  You seriously don't think "we should decrease the number of people born with Down Syndrome" is a morally defensible position either? I don't think "we should decrease the number of people born homosexual" is a morally defensible position, but decreasing incidence of Down Syndrome, or autism, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, are absolutely morally defensible positions, and in fact, are regularly done -- people everywhere socially discourage pregnant mothers from drinking alcohol, for example, and I don't think the discouraging third-parties are the ones who are in the wrong in that situation. I think having a child AT ALL, regardless of any other concerns, is an individual decision that should be made by mature, capable adults. I don't think it's necessarily a "morally defensible position" to have a third kid when you're struggling to take care of the previous two just because you belong to a religion that thinks prophylactics are immoral, and I would never, for example, judge a potential parent who decided to terminate a pregnancy because they were told it is unlikely their child will be born alive, and even if it is, would be unlikely to live for long.
  - striking 6y ago
    Yeah, I'm not arguing abortion is bad. I'm saying that we should deeply consider the morality of choosing to do it in such cases, because people with Down Syndrome or autism or other such differences can totally lead reasonably healthy and happy lives. Nowhere did I claim that it is reasonable to "judge a potential parent who decided to terminate a pregnancy because they were told it is unlikely their child will be born alive" (in fact, I'm Polish and am horrified at the new law recently passed in the country in which I was born, which specifically intends to do away with this specific act). I think it's fine if you can't support another kid because you can't support another kid. I think it's fine if your kid won't live because your kid won't live. But people with Down Syndrome and autism do live. And I think we should strongly consider the morality of the situation before going down that road. If someone is already struggling enough as it is keeping their lives together and finds out that this is the case, I would at least say it's more defensible than otherwise, because it is indeed harder to provide for some kids. But all kids are hard to provide for in their own way, and perhaps that person shouldn't be having kids anyway if that's the case. After all, we can't ever test for everything; it's entirely possible still to have a kid with something that can't be tested. And people do discourage pregnant mothers from drinking, because that's an easy step to take to ensure higher chances of a happy and healthy baby. It's a false equivalence to compare that to terminating a potential life. I won't judge people for their decisions. They have their reasons for doing what they'll do. And I'm absolutely unabashedly pro-choice. And of course I would have a hard time dealing with hearing that my kid will end up having Downs or whatever. But I think there is an aspect of morality to consider here, and the plain-and-simple "we should decrease the number of people born with Down Syndrome", presented without exception (as you put it, "absolutely"), does not fit my view. It's too close to eugenics for my taste.

dogma1138 6y ago

This isn’t new, either nature took care of things in the past or people did... We’ve essentially only had a few decades when it was not possible to identify these conditions in the womb and society was able and willing to support these individuals and allow them to live on. Realistically in the past these children would’ve been killed by their parents either directly or through abandonment and those who weren’t often didn’t survive through adulthood especially once their parents have passed.

xupybd 6y ago
Yes some Greek societies left the weak babies to die from exposure others put their children on the alter in the hopes of better crop yields. Because it has been done in the past doesn't justify it now.
- dogma1138 6y ago
  You don’t need to go that far throughout history, children with severe mental or physical disabilities didn’t live long even half a century ago even in most developed nations they would be abandoned and for those that weren’t society didn’t had the facilities to support them. Down and autism today seems so much more common simply because these individuals get the chance to live to and through adulthood. These conditions don’t only affect people’s mental abilities they have a plethora of other health issues too. 75% of people with Down syndrome that die die from respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses as they suffer from immune system issues and frequent inflammation, with the current pandemic a lot of them have died because if they do get infected they are severely affected. https://err.ersjournals.com/content/26/143/160098 https://err.ersjournals.com/content/26/143/160098 Before modern medicine and the flu jab many of them wouldn’t survive a harsh flu season... Heck before we knew what Down syndrome was most of them probably perished as infants from infections that healthy individuals would just shrug off.

the8472 6y ago

> China's sex selective abortions [...] Nazi eugenics campaigns Those are organizations in charge of the trolley lever. How about putting the would-be parents in charge and keeping the organizations out?

flukus 6y ago

> I really think people need to think long and hard before they take a side on opening the Pandora's box. The box was opened 40 years ago at least, as a fetus I was screened due to a down syndrome older sister. > This is far from a cure to genetic diseases it is removal of diseased individuals from the population 100% of down syndrome men and 30-50% of women are infertile. Throw in dating challenges and issue regarding consent and theses genes aren't going to last long anyway.