7 ms·

I remember reading a story the other year about Iceland having eliminated almost completely Down's Syndrome from their populace by aborting those fetuses which

• grog454 4y ago
  Well it sounds one step closer to eugenics, which you can easily find discussion and controversy on.
  • cercatrova 4y ago
    I cannot equate eugenics to aborting medically maligned fetuses. The former is based on superficial features of people that do not impact their physical or cognitive development, such as race, gender or sexuality, while the latter does, and it does so with increased suffering for the individual.
    • stephenhuey 4y ago
      Equivocate does not mean what you think it does. More importantly, many times in history those “superficial features” have been associated by people, rightly or wrongly, with superior cognitive or physical abilities and used as an excuse for eugenics. Even more importantly, having known many people with Down’s I would caution you against saying that they have greater suffering and therefore would be better off not existing. Countless people feel differently about that.
      • cercatrova 4y ago
        They feel differently because they are already born. However, if they never existed in the first place, they would not have the capacity to feel that way, or feel any way at all actually. It is the same argument as the abortion debate, where those against it appeal to the people already born that might have been aborted, but that is a false equivalence.
        • stephenhuey 4y ago
          Yes, but in this case I don’t think they are experiencing the level of suffering you think they are. But if I try to stay with you for a minute and listen to your case for there being a level of suffering that would make someone better off not existing, my question would be, where do you draw that line? You already drew it way earlier than I would’ve expected you would.
          • cercatrova 4y ago
            Severe mental or physical disability is where. For some reason, other people in this thread are equating eye color with severe disabilities, which is asinine to me. One is superficial, one actually produces suffering.
            • canam 4y ago
              Are you aware that some people with Down Syndrome go to college? The effects of the genetic defect vary widely amongst the population of affected. If we take your argument of suffering then what about people born into poverty? Do they not deserve to live either? The point you are missing is that people with disabilities are people. They deserve to live same as you, despite the challenges. Have some empathy.
              • cercatrova 4y ago
                That is again a post hoc rationalization. Just because some go to college does not mean we shouldn't cure their medical maladies. Some people with cancer go to college, does that mean we should not cure them?
    • concordDance 4y ago
      No, that is not what eugenics means. That's what the strawman version of eugenics means (even 80 years ago it was a bit strawmannish, now it's even more so).
    • adrianN 4y ago
      The steelman version of eugenics does select for features that impact physical or cognitive development. Both mental and physical talents are in part hereditary. That means you can run a breeding program to boost them.
    • tartoran 4y ago
      It would be at the whim of the parents, and such it coule not be equated to eugenics.
  • esperent 4y ago
    It's one step closer to Eugenics (with a capital E) in the same sense that legalizing weed is one step closer to the entire population being addicted to heroin. Same ballpark, different game.
    • idiotsBeDamned 4y ago
      Eh, I would say it's closer to saying legalizing weed is one step closer to legalizing heroin. Probably yes, perhaps not, but in what capacity? The fear monger says heroin will be available for sale at the corner store and frequently used recreationally in the same capacity as weed. Regardless the legalization of weed has opened up the discussion legalization of other illegal drugs, but there is discussion as to the role of legalization that is different to what happened with weed
• SmileyJames 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics Aside: I'd love to be a fly on the wall as you try to discuss your stance with a person with one more chromosome than you
  • cercatrova 4y ago
    If they're already born then obviously there's nothing to do. However, what I'm talking about is the same as the abortion debate, about allowing a parent to choose whether they want to rear a child or not.
    • SmileyJames 4y ago
      The difference is not in the act, but the information the decision is based on. Choosing not to have a child because of you are unable to safely raise it, is one thing. (can't afford to raise a child; mother is too young; rape victims) Choosing not to have a child because it's genetic code doesn't fit your notion of good. Is another. (Downs; autism; gender; eye color)
      • MontyCarloHall 4y ago
        Children with Down syndrome, severe autism, and other disabilities are significantly harder to raise than children without, often requiring lifelong care. This falls under your first criterion (“choosing not to have a child because ~of~ you are unable to safely raise it”). Gender and eye color do not fall under this criterion. (Tangentially, this is a question that supporters of unconditional access to abortion do not have a good answer for. If abortion is 100% legal, without exception, does that mean it’s OK to use it for female infanticide?)
        • tsol 4y ago
          Same for the autistic and mentally ill. I'd like to just roll the dice until I get one that'll be easy to raise. And in much of the world girls are indeed much harder to raise
• tsol 4y ago
  Makes sense. I wouldn't wish autism on anyone, knowing how much suffering it causes me. It's reasonable then to abort fetuses with signs of autism right? Mental illness is terrible too.
  • idiotsBeDamned 4y ago
• throwawaylinux 4y ago
  A campaign of state sponsored genocide against a class of people because they may be disadvantaged or have a more difficult life, for "the greater good" is... concerning. Assuming tests were possible (which they might be), what would you think about an intensive government campaign to eliminate homosexual and trans people from the population?
  • cercatrova 4y ago
    It's not state sponsored. They merely provided tests for free and parents chose to abort. Nowhere did the government force them.
    • throwawaylinux 4y ago
      The state develops the programme, funds it, and encourages it and celebrates it. State sponsored. But whatever you like to call it, I'm asking about the same kind of elimination campaign directed at other disadvantaged groups.
  • bigDinosaur 4y ago
    So you'd advocate against treating (or indeed, aborting) for all genetic or congenital conditions where the child may live to an adult? That seems extreme in and of itself.
    • throwawaylinux 4y ago
      I did not express my opinion about what should be done. It is a difficult problem and I would not debate it here. I was just explaining why it is controversial.
      • bigDinosaur 4y ago
        If no mother had a child after the age of 25 you'd also see a significant drop in Down Syndrome rates with a similar effect to abortions (although obviously not the 100% which abortions could in theory achieve). Effectively that would be doing the same thing except without the controversy of abortion but few would call that eugenics. What's the difference? Would people say it's bad if the rate of Down Syndrome decreased because mothers were younger?
• knolax 4y ago
  Downs Syndrome is caused by a random mutation. It's not inherited so the long term rate of it occuring would be unaffected. Given the massive amount of inbreeding in Iceland they have bigger concerns.
  • at_a_remove 4y ago
    It is mostly not inherited. It can be, however. That extra chromosome doesn't just go *poof* during meiosis. For the translocation type of the syndrome, it can and does happen occasionally.
  • fshr 4y ago
    > It's not inherited so the long term rate of it occuring would be unaffected. What? The rate of it occurring is about the number of people alive with the syndrome, not those conceived. They abort all of them, so there are less of them. It's not about inheritance.
  • tsimionescu 4y ago
    Like any genetic disorder, Down syndrome is actually inheritable. 50% of the children of a Down syndrome parent (typically a mother, as men with Down syndrome are typically infertile) will also have Down syndrome, assuming no special technology is used. What is true is that the 50% of children who do not have Down syndrome will likely also not have any higher chance than the general population of having children of their own with Down syndrome.
• jononomo 4y ago
  Kids with Down Syndrome have a reduced cognitive ability, but an enhanced ability to demonstrate love. Removing them from the world is not only wrong, but foolish.
  • savryn 4y ago
    An absurdist thought experiment I've had recently: Every single 'controversial' topic comes with an unspoken invisible "at current rate" percent sign/sliding scale, for any side of any debate about society. (political/ social/ demographic/ financial/ health ) I believe lots of obnoxious contrarian things very strongly and yet I'm honest with myself that at some fuzzy unknown hypothetical percentage, my opinion would have to flip because the entire structure of society would transform, warp, and eventually collapse. People should stop with trolley problems and start asking about the invisible number next to every prescriptive societal claim they hold. Most people are not that honest with themselves EVEN for the categories they themselves are in. So, downs syndrome: Somewhere between 0% percent, iceland, all the way to 100% of all new children born are born with downs and kept... (lets say some virus or enemy action or monsanto in the water etc) , move the slider along one percent at a time in your mind... What percent leading to implosion of entire US society/alternate 'children of men' disaster that upends everything demographically, every institution and economic reality that holds the country together? All women are doomed to give up every dream they had, be it of working or of a healthy family, they are now nanny-slaves to special needs children, who will reshape family dynamics. Half the healthy men have to break their back to keep current society infrastructure, military crawling along while the other half must rebuild all society around the new demographic burden. Every healthy non-downs sibling becomes neglected and bitter as the special ones suck up all oxygen and finances. All the aging adult population must now compete for healthcare with the new generation of special needs. Maybe some take one for the team, suicides to pass along resources. The life of every useful american adult needs to now be rerouted to a future of corralling these "good hearted" but unstable giant toddlers in adult bodies, with adult strengths and "impulses" and food and resource needs. Ethnic resentments ramp up as some group values shift at different rates, being resource drains or having an edge on others. At what percent (10%???) would foreign powers smell blood in the water and begin planning invasion to get first dibs at the doomed superpower? (the effect of the small covid numbers (0.1%??? ) was sobering and has reshaped everything I think about how people and societies work, and I'm grateful for that lesson) So, yeah, what's the highest percentage of total new births of these happy loveable people that you personally would still hold your current opinion about?
• aaron695 4y ago
  > Somehow, this attitude seems controversial, and I do not understand it. If you are not willing to kill babies and adults with Down Syndrome then your argument is incoherent. Saying it's controversial allows lines, like killing adults with Downs would also hurt a lot of people around them who love them. Abortion of course is controversial, the are thousands of different rules and time limits in different jurisdictions because it's so hard to understand. One assumes this is excluded from your argument since it's so obviously controversial. Also this is not 'Iceland' this is the world where people are rich enough to care for the health of their babies. In these place most people chose to abort. You also have other Sophies choice questions since the first test has a very high false positive you have to test properly with a 1 in 200 chance of miscarrying a fetus that is healthy.
  • bongoman37 4y ago
    If the first test is positive, it is followed with a second, more sensitive test. It is not directly go to abort.
    • aaron695 4y ago
  • concordDance 4y ago
    > If you are not willing to kill babies and adults with Down Syndrome then your argument is incoherent. To explain why I think you're being downvoted: Imagine someone saying "I think all children should be born with at least two loving parents.". Would you say this implies they want to kill every bastard?