Down's Syndrome...

Jestor wrote:

ren wrote: Yes, people do indeed seem not to find the banning interesting or relevant, hence the "ever lower depths".

Lol, here I go derailing, lol....

It is not interesting, because people understand... People read the boards, see public issues...

If it were possible to ban you, it probably would have happened too...

And few would have complained about that.... Or bitches for your reinstatement....

Quit trying to stir up a bunch of crap....

I'm not asking for anything or trying to stir up a bunch of "crap". As you aptly pointed out he and I are not friends. More alike than he realizes, and probably just as obsessed in doing what we believe to be right, but, not friends.

I am however wondering what he did that's so bad. I mentioned him in this very thread before (I think) he was banned, I come back and he's nowhere to be found. His character traits definitely are those of someone who has ASD, so I am wondering, and this is a genuine question, excuse me for being logical about all this: If it is "more wrong" to abort babies for being the way they are (Dawn's, ASD, etc), does that not make it "more wrong" to ban someone because of the way their mental condition makes them behave?

No

Well my wife is pregnant and due to her age they want to give a Down's syndrome test because they couldn't get the ultrasound in the right position to measure the spine. If the baby has Down's I'd definitely want to abort the pregnancy but would leave the decision to my wife. I'd ask her to go to an institution to see what she'd be in for. I honestly believe that we are not capable of meeting the needs of a child with Down's and so it would become someone else's task(e.g. the state). This is the real moral imperative. If you're capable of meeting the child's needs, then great! go ahead and have the child... if not, then think about the child.

We live in an age where Down's and other severe disabilities can be diagnosed during pregnancy. We also have strong scientific evidence that early abortions do not cause suffering to the fetus and they can't feel pain until 20 weeks. While there is some "gray area" in there, I do know that the Down's test is possible at 10 weeks and this is long before the 20 week point.

The vast majority of abortions happen before 20 weeks and are spontaneous, that is, not caused by a doctor in a clinic (induced), but as a result of complex natural processes which I usually refer to as "The Force".

The vast majority of pregnancies end this way(often without knowledge there ever was a pregnancy), and the vast majority of those spontaneous abortions are caused by chromosomal issues such as trisomy (Down's syndrome falls into that category).

It is in fact uncommon for trisomies NOT to end up in an abortion.

Whyte Horse wrote:
We live in an age where Down's and other severe disabilities can be diagnosed during pregnancy.

I currently work with a charity that deals with kids born with heart defects and Downs is a very common accompanying condition. Around a third of those who have the conditions (heart) diagnosed in utero do take the offer of termination. I never really thought about the irony of being pro choice from the perspective of women being permitted total control over a pregnancy, but uneasy with the idea just because a child has a disability. After all, not wanted is not wanted, whether its because of a disability, or another factor, its not the child's fault. And I never realized how hypocritical my stance was. but working here has certainly been an eye opener.

There's around an equal number of women who've aborted and regretted it, and those who didn't and regret it.

I don't honestly know what I would do in that situation. Even if I went purely off the idea of the quality of life the child might have... its still hard to predict, and you will never know if you made the right call. I find myself wondering what would happen if there was no medical intervention or support during their lives as I know that many of the kids I work with would not have lived past their first few days.

There's a part of me that thinks we interfere too much, and a part of me that would be very sad if we couldn't.

Ive probably not added much to the discussion, but i think its important to acknowledge that if the decision is to abort, its the end of the possibility of a life, regardless of the reason.

I often wonder if we interfere too much...life has a way of doing what is needed...if a species is to evolve then survival of the fittest factors in...traits that improve survival get passed on, the problem is that with medical interference we enable traits that inhibit survival to be passed on...

I tend to agree with you Ryu. While modern medicine has achieved some truly amazing breakthroughs, I often feel like we are tinkering with things we are not prepared to take full responsibility for.

Now, before I get too high on my soap box, let me say that I would likely take full advantage of modern medicine and every other opportunity to heal myself should I be put in that position. I don't pretend to be someone who would not prolong their own life given the chance.

At the same time, I profess to believe in the Force that surrounds us, envelops us, and connects all things. Who am I to question the decision of any man, woman, or couple about their baby? Perhaps it is the will of the Force? Perhaps it is people meddling with nature and going against the Force? More to ponder...

RyuJin wrote: life has a way of doing what is needed

Very Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park. I completely agree. If science fiction teaches us anything it's that man meddling in the affairs of nature won't work out the way we want.

If science fiction teaches us anything it's that man meddling in the affairs of nature won't work out the way we want.

Fiction being the key word.

It would make for a poor story if scientists did something like end world hunger, or create free,clean energy, etc.

Science fiction teaches us that meddling in the affairs of nature wont work out how we want.

Take a look at the "This week in Science" thread and you will see that the reality is a bit different.

Its odd to take a negative view on science and its progress off of fictional accounts that are specifically geared to create a dramatic story for entertainment.

That creates irrational fear and suspicion, and a very skewed perspective.

I also find it curious that people thing we are "meddling with nature"

Nature tries to kill you in a myriad of ways everyday.

The world is not catered to you or your survival.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4238NN8HMgQ

We are surviving in nature, and growing to understand it and where evolution was at one time a process taking millions of years we are now an active part of it, and there very subject of evolution has changed.

We need not wait to see if downs syndrome will get bred out, we can selectively breed it out, which is not exactly on par with bringing back the velociraptor.

Which wasnt as big as a human, was covered in feathers and about the size of a turkey, which is just one a million flaws with that book/movie.

If we dont "meddle" in nature, we wont survive it.

Khaos wrote:

If science fiction teaches us anything it's that man meddling in the affairs of nature won't work out the way we want.

I also find it curious that people thing we are "meddling with nature"

Nature tries to kill you in a myriad of ways everyday.

The world is not catered to you or your survival.

Well sure it is, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Even if you do consider it random chance that we are here it is most marvelous to consider that we live ina universe where such a long-long-long-long-long-shot could ever play itself out. Even if you want to say that that long-shot is mostly due to the sheer and vast amount of energy and mater in the universe that immensity is still so great as to seem Divine to those who would look with eyes unclouded by dogma, religious or scientific.

And after all is there truly anything 'unnatural?' Is nature the word we use to indicate the whole of existence, even down the subatomic levels and all the way out the furthest celestial reaches? I think it is much more so used this way than in a way to indicate being out on a hike in the rain forest or camping in the mountains. Nature is trying to kill us. It is also supporting us in our struggle for survival. It is the reason we are here. It is the reason we will one day be gone. It is the ouroboros, the serpent eating its own tail, the power of life over death in the field of time and the pervasiveness of death within the whole of that field.

Also, just to address this point again, Down's Syndrome will not be bred out of the species, it is not an heritable condition (http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/down-syndrome#inheritance : Most cases of Down syndrome are not inherited. When the condition is caused by trisomy 21, the chromosomal abnormality occurs as a random event during the formation of reproductive cells in a parent). There is nothing to breed out beyond the general frailty that we all live with as human beings. And that would have to be bred out of all us, though I think we would cease to be human if it were to come to pass that way. Cynics I think would love to see this happen. I for one value my humanity and would not surrender it, certainly not just to alleviate the fear that accompanies it.