Aborting people with down syndrome? Moral or not?
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
23 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.So much mental illness and Fragile X Syndrome runs in my family, that I have taken it very seriously.
You can’t just pick one disorder to move ahead with an argument against abortion.
For people who make this choice to abort, its a painful decision. Or it’s freeing. Thankful they do not have to take on a responsibility they can’t handle.
Unless we are willing to personally step in and help for an entire lifetime, Who are we to judge?
Sydland
Level 7
Aug 30, 2019
5
It is a personal decision for the parents to make.
Stephanie99
Level 8
Aug 30, 2019
5
Not everyone is cut out to raise a person with Down's Syndrome. I believe it's up to the caregiver/s to make the decision that is best for them.
kiramea
Level 7
Aug 30, 2019
5
@Renickulous First of all, it's not eugenics if you're not advocating the killing of a group of people. MY opinion is that it's up to the caregiver, and is none of my business. Last I heard abortion is still legal in the United States.
If you don't want to make that decision, then don't. No one is forcing you to.
Totally agree up to the parents
This is a personal decision that the parents should make. I cannot judge or decide whether it is moral or immoral. I do not know how severe the level of down syndrome is, or the ability for the parents to care for the child if they choose to proceed with the pregnancy to full term, and bring the child into this world. That is not my call to make. I do not have the right to pass judgment, or to make any decision, or to give any advice to anyone in that situation. It is up to the parents. It is their choice and decision.
noworry28
Level 8
Aug 30, 2019
3
You should have just as easily asked what is your opinion due to the fact that our morality is based on so many factors such as where we were born,who we were born to ,what values were instilled in us,what values we chose.The ways that our lives have shaped us .That dictates so much of what we assume is our morality.
richiegtt
Level 8
Aug 30, 2019
4
Loaded question and is completely up to each individual that carries the zygotes.
darthfaja
Level 7
Aug 30, 2019
4
@Renickulous
Complicated issue and not my decision. That’s up to each mother to decide.
We could argue back and forth all day and get no where. Wether or not Down’s syndrome is part of the decision is irrelevant. I could easily see this occurring over eye color in the future.
Not my future child not my concern and none of my business.
@Renickulous
Except zygotes aren’t people or living beings in my opinion.
Pushing your point by using extreme examples does nothing for me. This is hardly the Holocaust and it didn’t occur due to indifference.
people aren't aborted
larsatrg
Level 7
Aug 30, 2019
1
@Renickulous human is the only pregnancy termination that would make sense given the question. pretty sure i get the question. still... seems to be saying the very thing that gives me pause. would be okay with it phrased as - is it moral to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus is determined to exhibit traits of down syndrome?
One of my partners was alcoholic. Alcoholism ran in her family. She was determined to not have children (she was a big proponent of abortion) simply because she did not want to take the chance of passing on what she had to live through to another. People mostly have children for selfish reasons and instinct. We seldom consider what the new person has to deal with. Things are looking very bad for future generations never mind the fact that they will have the added burden of having a mental disorder. Children are NOT from a god nor are they loved by and gods or even have some protections from gods.
Hunter gatherers knew their lifestyle could only support a limited population and often had to commit infanticide to keep the tribe from going hungry. It's called Nature and she sets the rules and she laughs at any human attempt to put feelings or their own sense of 'morals' into the equation.
JackPedigo
Level 9
Aug 30, 2019
3
it's a tough world for perfectly healthy normal children. i certainly never would have brought a down's child into this world, had i the choice.
reminds me of 2 men i knew who had down's children. one was a very healthy robust fellow of norwegian descent who married for the 2nd time in his late 30s about the same age as his partner. they didn't have the ambiotic fluid tested & the baby had down's. he told me that his father said the child would be better off dead.
the 2nd fellow was a successful businessman & municipal politician. he had the down's child late in life (over 50). we were golfers & used to go to a legion to play pool after golf. when the boy was around 12 or 13 he would occasionally bring him to the legion. while he was playing pool he would let the boy sit at the bar & check lottery tickets which he would get from a machine. we had a nice statuesque waitress there & she was always friendly with the little down's guy. when the kid was around 14 or so his hormones must have started to kick in b/c one day we were playing pool & the waitress let out a blood curdling scream. she was leaning against the bar & the kid just reached out & grabbed & squeezed her breasts. needless to say that was the last time Ian brought his down's son into that legion.
callmedubious
Level 8
Aug 30, 2019
2
In my last job i had a down coworker, He masturbated during service, but here in my country is forbidden to fire employees with down.
It is entirely up to the mother. Is it something she (and possible partner) handle? Like any other pregnancy. I find it immoral to bring any life into the world you are incapable of properly caring for.
CommonHuman
Level 7
Aug 30, 2019
2
Who are you to make a call that you have business sticking your two cents in?
oldFloyd
Level 8
Aug 30, 2019
2
@Renickulous no, it's a judgment call that I know I prefer not to take.
@Renickulous quite simple is not my decision to make nor is it yours. That answer lies only with the woman whose embryo that may be.
@Renickulous it's not just a question when you claim it's eugenics in the reply above this comment . Just seems like you have made your decision and want to judge others on their replies
@TheMiddleWay it is no one's decision except the two people involved with the creation of the embryo the woman has the final say. As far as terminating a child that has been born no.
I don’t know if it’s “moral” or not, I need to know a definition of “moral” first. All I know is that I can understand why people may want to do that.
Sonya
Level 4
Aug 30, 2019
2
@Renickulous I generally don’t think in such categories. In this particular case, I think it is acceptable.
I think there may be several ideas of 'morel.' To me if species are caused to go extinct through our actions it is immoral. If it is our own it is immoral on a higher level.
I have had an irrational life long fear of Downs Syndrome, until after my wife's death when I took up Support work. That being at the time with the British charity the National Autistic Society.
Through this work I have met many people with DS, although I don't work with them directly I have overcome my fear. Indeed, now I have friends who have DS. People who I'll do almost anything for to make a positive difference to.
All they are is different, get over it. Society at least in the West, has moved on to a point where we can happily look after them. There is one person who has a superb dry sense of humour, and he is a sharp guy.
As a bonus I get really hugs from them, so let them live. I've learned, let society learn too.
Sofabeast
Level 7
Sep 8, 2019
0
There is promising research targeting the correction of DS in children ages 18 months to 36 months. It is a very controversial, complicated and right now still unreliable genetic engineering/targeted fusion approach. Hard to answer your question. I'm pro-choice, of course.
zesty
Level 7
Sep 3, 2019
0
Wow. I find it odd people think killing is moral. Killing anyone, fetus or grown person, is immoral on its own...isnt it?
Just because one can abort, and is legal to do so, doesn't mean it suddenly becomes a moral act.
The act of killing is immoral. It always will be. Especially if you are an Atheist or Agnostic and realize there is no after-life, that life is....the only form of existence we get to have and experience. Good or bad.
Let's not fool ourselves. It is always immoral, regardless of whether it is legal or not, whether society accepts it or not.
It's a tough choice, but don't sugar coat it.
If you're wondering: I support "pro-well informed choice", because it's always a tough personal choice, and all options should be presented and seriously considered.
MakeItGood
Level 7
Sep 1, 2019
0
Good for Iceland! Congratulations on eradicating this syndrome by early and humane intervention.
Killtheskyfairy
Level 9
Aug 31, 2019
0
Alright, here is my official opinion since the OP blocked me for neither agreeing nor disagreeing with him. I want everyone to know I worked very hard using microsoft paint to make this picture so you can be sure that it's scientifically accurate and not a joke whatsoever.
Happy_Killbot
Level 7
Aug 30, 2019
0
Whether or not it's moral to abort babies with down syndrome is debatable.
Whether or not its moral for parents to have the option to have only children who are not disadvantaged in any way is in a different league.
If children with down syndrome provide some benefit to society that normal children don't, then aborting them just because they have down syndrome is wrong, because nature put that there for a reason. For example people with anxiety are less likely to take risks, so its beneficial to survival. If it is just a random fluke and doesn't provide any benefit or is detrimental, then aborting those children is not only moral right but a moral imperative to do so.
If the parents are actively trying to have a baby, then aborting a defective baby is only a temporary setback, because the parents can have another child. Parents are having fewer children and having them later in life in developed countries, so it makes sense to focus on the quality of those children, raising a few who will hopefully be successful instead of a lot and hope any survive.
Happy_Killbot
Level 7
Aug 30, 2019
0
@Renickulous Lets do a little thought experiment.
Lets say that science discovers a set of genes that leads to someone becoming a serial killer ( I don't think this will ever be a reality, based on my understanding of genetics but for now we will just assume it to be true ) However there is a 10% chance that someone with this set of genes will go on to lead a normal life.
Would it be morally right to abort any baby that had this set of genes?
If you think its still wrong, then you are saying that the people the yet unborn children may or may not kill deserve to die more than the child.
If you look at this through a society wide lens, it is better that all those serial killer children are unborn, because if they are they may kill others who are more productive to society.
On top of that, you can argue that it never hurts the aborted baby ( as long as its an early termination ) because their mind isn't developed enough to experience the pain, thus it doesn't really suffer.
Down syndrome is on the line between being a horrible burden to society and another random mutation that doesn't hurt anyone, which is why asking if it's moral or not is debatable.
My official opinion will rest with the determination of its utility to society, which is yet undefined. (I didn't vote )
@Renickulous I am neither for nor against aborting children with down syndrome
Pretty edgy for a site called "Agnostic.com" right?
If people with red hair were somehow detrimental to society, then yes killing them would be the right answer however I see no evidence suggesting this. That's why I think we should wait util after there has been some analysis on its effect on society.
Ultimately, the choice to have a child or not should be the parents.
As far as the abortion debate goes, I do have an official stance:
MALE BIRTH CONTROL!
The fact that abortions are so prevalent in our society is an indicator that current birth control methods are ineffective. Women's birth control has been available for years, however the male options are:
Condoms only 98% effective,
vasectomy, requires surgery, several months to be effective and occasionally doesn't work
and abstinence, which lets be honest doesn't happen
To combat this I would recommend funding research and development for male birth control to add an extra layer of defense, and what's better is that no amalgamation of undeveloped human has to die. The fact that the decision to breed isn't fully conscious and consensual is an atrocity to our humanity that for some reason never comes up in abortion debates.
@Renickulous you absolutely have a right to your perspective. I don't want to change your perspective or opinion. But your scientific argument is flimsy at best. Do you actually have any background in biology? If you just are not well versed in biology, i won't waste my breath, but if you are, then you should know the points in your argument are worthless because of looots of reasons.
@Renickulous I really don't see the problem with early term abortion. I mean, when we call something human is not scientific, its philosophical. It's also totally arbitrary.
Why should we consider a zygote a human because it has unique DNA? Science says this is true, I agree. It also has one cell. every minute, 300 million cells die in the human body. Some of these cells are killed by a natural killer cell, that locates somatic or abnormal cells and shuts them down.
Does this mean that everyone is suicidal?
I don't think that anyone would argue that people are suicidal just because some parts of them kill other parts with intention, but still people argue that an group of cells that lacks a heart, mind or any organs is a person.
If you wait until the fetus is more developed, how is it even possible then that we can say at any definitive point that it is a person? Even after the child is born it still relies on its parents for support and protection, and doesn't act independently until it is much older.
Both sides of the abortion debate claim science to justify their pre-conceived notions after the fact, instead of using it to uncover new knowledge. As far as i'm concerned, both sides have made a mockery of science, so I will support neither and instead will stick with my official stance, which you already know is: MALE BIRTH CONTROL!
@Renickulous I don’t care what your opinion is. My only problem with what you’re saying is your lack of scientific knowledge. You’re saying totally untrue things scientifically. You don’t need science justify her opinion but please don’t use untrue science. Once again please hear me I’m not disagreeing with your point. I am saying you don’t know shit about science so stop using it.
@Renickulous Are clones different people then?
If we cloned someone, they would have 100% the same DNA as their clone. Does that mean they are the same person?
If they are not, what makes them unique?
This isn't a very good argument, because like I said its a misuse of science.
@Renickulous Do you have a degree in biology or bio science?
@Renickulous Trisomy 21 is an extra chromosome. It is not genes that cause autism it is having this extra chromosome. I would explain haploid and diploid to you but it would mean that you’d wanna learn instead of having an opinion. So just keep your opinion which is fine. And stop using little pieces of science that are misrepresented to prove your point. Because any Buddy who knows anything about actual science will see what a fraud you are.
@Renickulous So, lets assume that what makes someone unique is unique DNA.
Someone such as a clone has the same DNA, therefore they are the same person. that would be the logical conclusion here.
Clones are different people, therefore our assumption that having unique DNA makes someone unique is wrong!
@Renickulous I gave you diagrams and a whole journal article about why you’re wrong. I can’t just say in a sentence what you’re wrong about it takes a lot of learning. But you’re so ignorant you think you understand it. And you wanna make rules based on your ignorance. When somebody says you’re wrong and gives you details and data of how you’re wrong, you don’t even bother to take a look at it. You might as well be toting Jesus
@Renickulous Yep, that's my point. There are good arguments for pro-life, but an appeal to science is not a good one, because it doesn't prove anything. You can't prove or disprove moral truth with science.
You can however, prove or disprove usefulness to society.
@Renickulous No, no it doesn't.
Science is a lot of things, but it is not a system for labeling stuff. In order to say something is human or not, we first need a definition for what is human. Science may create a label to define a specific trait or characteristic of reality, but that is just for convenience in the transmission of the information and building on that knowledge in the future.
What we call a human doesn't change the scientific properties of that system it describes. If I say: "A human is a featherless biped" some may agree, but Diogenes will throw a featherless chicken at your face. But people will still be people even if that's your working definition.
If science says "A fetus is human" then we need to further decide what a fetus and a human is. You can never verifiable prove under rigorous conditions that a fetus is a human, because it isn't based on observations that are fundamentally true.
@Renickulous where do you stand on the morning after - planb? what if a woman consumes a pill after conception and no one knows it?
@Renickulous I feel like were arguing in circles now, I've already refuted the possibility that unique DNA makes someone human and you have accepted that.
You don't like abortion, that's fine, no one is forcing them to occur so I don't see a problem.
I lean pro-choice because I also lean pro-male birth control development.
Basically, if a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body and not get pregnant or give birth, then men should have the right to not get her pregnant in the first place so that everything is equal, fair, and free.
@Renickulous"In court you cannot prove a human in its earliest stages isn't human."
Science can't prove a negative, that's basically the whole reason people still talk about god or gods in the first place.
This isn't science, its philosophy.
I have already made this argument too. Also, the fetus needs the mother to survive, so it's the mother's body too.
Look, science says that an embryo is alive: True statement
Science says an embryo has unique DNA from the moment of conception: True statement.
Science says that a babie's brain and spinal coulomb isn't developed until 12-16 weeks: true statement
Science says that the baby can't feel pain until about 20-23 weeks: true statement
Is life sacred and deserving of our protection, even before birth?
Science says: "Not my job, go talk to those potheads in the philosophy department"
Is anyone really deserving of our protection? How about the death penalty? I always thought it was funny how the same party that is opposed to abortion on "moral grounds" is pro capital punishment.
" then aborting them just because they have down syndrome is wrong, because nature put that there for a reason."
does nature give perfectly healthy children terminal cancer for a reason?
@callmedubious Funny you should ask that.
There are certain types of cancer that are basically the cell losing it's ability to die. Death is actually just a genetic fluke that has been carried along since the Cambrian explosion, and in cancer this process has been reverted back to the early multi-cellular life stage.
For a complex organism, this is a death sentence. For the individual cells, its immortality.
@Happy_Killbot ,
how can it be immortality unless the cancer cell escapes it's dying host & finds another?
@callmedubious Cancer isn't a parasitic infection the way bacteria are, they don't necessarily need a host to survive. They are still fundamentally human cells, however given proper nutrition they will continue on outside the body. For example the HeLe line was first cultivated in 1951 from Henrietta Lacks without her permission, and has been the first cancer cell lines used for long term research. It is still used to this day.
Even though Mrs. Lacks died later that same year, her cancer is still alive today. This is another reason I am skeptical of the claim that a zygote having unique DNA is automatically a person as you can read above, because that would imply that she as a person is very much still alive, even though it is self evident that she is not. If we excepted this in the courts as counting as a person, it would have all sorts of weird legal implications
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.