Metal Reviews

What about preventing rather then remedying? Seems to me that parenthood could definitely be more restricted. Things like the emotional stability of the parents, the financial situation of the household, etc. Hell, they make you jump through hoops to adopt a baby.

For someone that is so keen on kicking the Muslims out because their religion is supposedly incompatible with a free society, you seem to have remarkably little idea of what a "free society" actually is.

I'll give you a hint: one of its most basic tenets is "innocent until proven guilty".

"The financial stability of the household". What a joke. No kids for the poor, eh. Neato.

No octuplets for single women on welfare.

And Zad, I'm not expecting everyone to understand my situation and whatnot, it's just that I want some views on the matter as it is a discussion I have participated in back home. If I had the choice to have an abortion or not when knowing the baby had downs I don't know what to choose if that's what you meant. I have never been in that situation before.

As Legacy points out, my main point here is that it is so damn easy to take the easy way out in todays society, and I find it a little scary actually, that people aren't willing to take the challenge it is to raise and care for a different child. And as I said, I am biased, but I fail to see the logic when it comes to why a child with downs doesn't deserve a shot at life just like everyone else. There is quite many people with DS here that are capable of living on their own you know.

Haha. Fuck off.

Ok back on the topic of DS pls.

There actually is a certain degree of "the child cementing the bond," but they were already a strong family to begin with. There weren't any problems that the kid was distracting them from. They had a normal kid before the Downs child, and they were just peachy then.

----

I'm with rio on eugenics, btw. The idea of the state coming in and deciding who can and can't reproduce is very very scary. EDIT: But as per his request, we are now off the topic.

My hat's off to those that have the courage and strength to raise a DS baby, or any child that is different.

From the little interaction I have had with a DS child (a family down the street has a girl with DS) I have concluded that the rest of us could actually learn a thing or two from them.
Who the hell has the right to deem who is worthy or unworthy of life?

As for abortion; it is a personal thing and something that should be done only when absolutely necessary, not a capriciously employed method of birth control, IMO.

As a counterpoint, why should parents who can barely afford to raise a normal kid in todays' expensive society be saddled with raising a child with Down's Syndrome just because the chromosomes went a little haywire?

It's better that they have a choice; those who do not want to should not have to and those who want to can go nuts. It's not 'the easy way out,' that's just the way it looks because the older generation didn't have that option. I mean, would you say 'it's a little scary that the younger generation can't calculate equations on a slide rule, it's so easy to just take the simple way out today,' or 'it's a little scary that the younger generation can't bake their own bread... just so many are so quick to take the easy way out and buy some from the store.'

I realize you may find that incredibly offensive, but hear me out. As far as Down's Syndrome goes, most people who had to bear that burden in the previous generation did so because they did not have the option of aborting. When the option was offered, they began, no? Is that because society as a whole is different, people have changed so wildly in the space of a few years that they're now evil and selfish cackling monsters who deny DS babies life? Or is it just because this kind of thing would have been done consistently from the year 1500 if it had been available and socially acceptable?

I think the crux of the matter is that it has become more socially acceptable than that it has not been available.
Abortions were performed prior to Roe v. Wade, probably for millenia, one way or another, only difference being it was done under cover of night and with a huge stigma attached.

Well yeah, but they definitely couldn't tell when the kid was DS regardless of the abortions performed.

I don't know what the technology was back then, but, I believe you are right.
And those tests are not always accurate.
Still, it is a tough call to make, and I have nothing but respect for anyone that has what it takes to deal with rasing a DS child, as I am sure it comes with it's share of pain and tribulation.

This.

Personally, I wouldn't go for the abortion because I probably wouldn't want to reverse the decision to give birth midway through the pregnancy. I'd rather not know anything about the fetus pre-it being born. I guess I'd have to actually go through it to know for sure though. It would be a very weird decision to make.

Of course.

But there's another point. In a welfare social country (like in Europe countries), the goverment spends a lot of money (in hospitals & treatments (not in SD, but in other genetic illness, yes), in special education, in direct help) because the parents made the decision of having a SD (or another genetic illness). The state has nothing to say about it? If the parents decide to have the children, they shoud renounce to part of the welfare aids?

I'm for genetic treatment in embryos to prevent genetic illness.

if parents aborted kids with downsyndrome, then devoted would not be with us today.
Im against it!!!

If the parents have the strength to raise a child with the disease, then that is their choice. Personally, I would find it too traumatic (and to be honest, I doubt I would be able to form a positive emotional bond with the child). In my view (and in a cold, logical approach), I do not see the sense in ruining my future in order to raise a child with a very limited quality of life. Selfish? Yes. Unethical? No. If a feotus is detected to have a severe genetic disease that will cripple its life and the lives of those around it, then where is the sense in continuing the pregnancy? Do ethics only extend to the feotus? Are the parents automatically excluded from the ethical equation?

Anyway, it all depends on the stage of the pregnancy that you consider the feotus to be a person. My view is that, when it kicks, its a baby. Until then, its a bundle of rapidly dividing cells.

You are one funny bastard you know that? Too bad I dislike you.

='(

Do you have downs syndrome?

BTW, I'm with Thomas on this one for the most part. But parents should have a right to choose wether or not they want to go through with it. Of course, the dude has just as much right to live as anyone. But if the parents feel they are not capable of giving a person with downs syndrome a good life, then they shouldn't have to go through with it IMO. Yes, it may be easy to take the "easy" way out, especially if they weren't sure about having a baby before they got the news. But, yeah, people shuld think about it... and as someone here said, if they do it, they are brave, but it can also change people and make them even better parents.

Sorry, if you don't understand everything but debating in English is not something I'm very good at. what I wrote above may not even have a big meaning, I was just writing down what first came to mind.

But back on topic, DevotedWalnut do you have downs?

Serious ROFLCOPTER

What the fuck does that mean?