Iceland & other nations are trying to eradicate Down's Syndrome from their nation!

Plaffelvohfen

Good for them. 

MayCaesar

I have never seen anyone before claim that eradication of Down's syndrome is a bad thing. That is a new one!

Supporting diversity does not mean being blind to real debilitating conditions people are subjected to. Sure, having, say, more people with lung cancer increases diversity in some way... But only a very wicked person would say that eradicating lung cancer is undesirable, because it would decrease diversity.

Diversity of ideas, backgrounds, cultures, etc. is good. Diversity of debilitating health conditions - certainly not.

Happy_Killbot

I hate it how some people will claim the moral high ground in the face of something that is objectively good for society and doesn't hurt anyone. (fetuses don't count as people)

These decisions are not being forced, nor are they coerced, they are the individual decisions of the parents making them.

By taking the stance "we should not abort babies based on having special needs", it implies you want people to have down syndrome and other genetic diseases. It doesn't take a genius to see what the best outcome here is.

Dee

Fabulous news long may it continue ...... Since prenatal screening tests were introduced in Iceland in the early 2000s, the vast majority of women -- close to 100 percent -- who received a positive test for Down syndrome terminated their pregnancy. 

While the tests are optional, the government states that all expectant mothers must be informed about availability of screening tests, which reveal the likelihood of a child being born with Down syndrome. Around 80 to 85 percent of pregnant women choose to take the prenatal screening test, according to Landspitali University Hospital in Reykjavik.

I know you hate women having choices but there you go big fella ......suck it up ......

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

Well, nothing is "objectively good", and one could argue that having an impairment in life can actually serve a good function. My family knew a guy, a musical director who lost his arms when he was 7 to an accident... Losing arms in Soviet Union put him so low on the social ladder that he simply had to get out of his way to achieve anything, and as a result he became a superstar, a workhorse who toured with leading European musicians and was the most socially free person I have ever heard of. One could argue that, without that experience, he would have a very mediocre life. Perhaps that applies to some people with Down's syndrome.

However, as a parent, giving birth to a child who will have such an impairment, when you know you can give a birth to one without it, makes little sense. If I ever have a kid who has some serious impairment, I will obviously support him/her in all ways possible and teach him/her how to take responsibility for everything and never become a victim - however, I struggle to think of a parent who wants their child to have an impairment. Aside from parents adopting impaired kids out of altruistic considerations, I do not understand the appeal.

DDAN15

@We_are_accountable eradication may be a bit too far but Abolism isn't necessarily that bad I mean come on you rally don't want someone with down syndrome to run a law firm or be your lawyer it's nothing against them but they just aren't as capable that's why it's called a disability

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar. Its the way they are eradicating the impairment/disease.  Killing them just doesnt seem right.

North korea to prevent coronavirus from entering just shot the people to do black market dealings for them with china...is that right because it helps eliminate the spread of the disease?

MichaelElpers

@Dee. We hate the idea that people would treat someone with a disability as less than human.

And that the reaction of someones child having down syndrome is to end there life is sad.

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers ;

There is a world of difference between aborting unborn creatures and killing living sentient beings. The point here is to prevent people with Down's syndrome from being born in the first place; nobody is talking about killing children or adults with Down's syndrome that are already there.

As for your next point, I agree that treating people with a disability as lesser humans is undesirable - but nor is ignoring their disability. I have known quite a few people with various disabilities, and the one thing they generally hate is pandering attitude. You would not tell someone having a cold that everything is fine; you would suggest that they stay home and recover. So why should disabled people be treated differently? You can treat a disabled person with all respect, while recognising their special needs.

Dee

@MichaelElpers

***** We hate the idea that people would treat someone with a disability as less than human.

Right , so a woman gets screened and is told she’s going to have a Downs baby and armed with this information should proceed?

****And that the reaction of someones child having down syndrome is to end there life is sad.

You mean potential child surely, sad for who?

Dee

@MichaelElpers

****  Killing them just doesnt seem right.

I have a friend with a child with Down’s syndrome he said the worst decision he and his wife made was going ahead with the pregnancy the child needs constant care and the quality of life is diminished for the rest of the family also the future worries of who will care for the child has put him in the position of trying to stash away as much money as possible for future care while the rest of the family have to suffer the consequences of such 

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Isn't aborting a baby who is impaired in some way the more altruistic action, specifically because as a parent you wouldn't want them to have a bad life?

It is possible for someone who has some disadvantage to succeed in life, but it is not a given. The people who do are usually the most driven in some way in the first place. There is a much lower percentage of people with down syndrome who will succeed in life or achieve a high socioeconomic status as compared to those who do not. The fact that there are outliers is not a good argument, because it is comparable to saying: 'Some people win the lottery, therefore everyone should play the lottery because there is a chance they could win" While it is true and logically consistent, it doesn't acknowledge the probability of winning the lottery.

A society without down syndrome is objectively better than one with down syndrome, that is all I mean when I say that it is objectively good for society, because a society without the down syndrome disability will have have healthier happier people and will in the long run and on average out compete a society that has individuals with the down syndrome disability.

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

Amazing! To listen to people on the Left scream against anyone who does not support Special needs children, and then having these same people saying Downs Syndrome is a diversity worth killing over? You are comparing a child's diversity and Special Needs to a cancer?

These Down Syndrome children love life and the parents and family members love them!

What about autism? What about people born with one arm or no arms? What about cleft lips? Tell us all how far down the scale of diversity does your  intolerance rear it's ugly head? Who made you God and the all knowing judge and jury over which human lives deserve protecting?

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

I am not sure about that; one could say that it is better to be born impaired, than not to be born at all. Of course here we are talking about a creature that does not even have sentience yet, so whether one can be altruistic towards it or not itself is not clear.
In any case, when adopting an impaired kid, we are dealing with the kid that is already there. This act does not decrease or increase the number of impaired kids in the society, hence does not have the same effect aborting ones does.

"Objectively better" is an oxymoron, as what is good and what is bad is inherently subjective. One could argue that society needs challenges, and even that society needs impaired people. People who have everything in life tend to grow complacent; there is a lot of people who grew up in wealthy families and became lazy and bored with life. There has to be something pushing people forward, and an impairment could play this role. It does not have to be present, but it can serve a vital function.
I know that for me having been born in a third world country was a blessing; while I hated growing up there, nowadays I can appreciate the lessons I had to learn there. Only through hardships can you understand some vital aspects of life, and people deprived of them tend to have pretty naive outlook on many things.

I agree that we should strive for bettering our lives in all regards, but I think the importance of solving societal issues is greatly exaggerated typically. Instead of solving societal issues, I think the society should focus on creating new opportunities for people, so everyone could realize their potential. Trying to create a sterile and flawless environment might be the wrong way to go about progress, although, again, there might not be "rights" and "wrongs" in the objective sense in the first place.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

It doesn't take a genious to see that the horrors of Nazi Germany are still all around us. Nazi's killed Jewish people because they believed them to be inferior to the Arien race.

Slave owners killed Black people because of a perceived belief that they were less human than white people.

Now we have people like you declaring that Special Needs children, who might not live up to yor desired IQ, declaring they also do not deserve life.

You can repeating the same lie, that viable babies are not human lives worth protecting, till you are dead in your grave, and you will always be barbarically wrong! Innocent human ife must always be protected no matter what some barbaric dictator or Leftwing Party says.

How would you like some selfish elite declaring your life worthless? Maybe your race or ethnicity is deemed inferior to some.That is no different from what you are doing. That viable unborn baby is every bit a human life, deserving of protection, as you.

We_are_accountable

@De

Wow, this is where mankind wallows without God's humanity. They become like animals killing their own young for sake of conveience. Truly sick!

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

It's not about being appealing to someone! It's about humanity! Can you grasp the difference? It's about loving our children regardless their health problems, and when fnding out they have some problems, being there for them, not killing them!

Sure it's unfortunate when our children have Special Needs and health issues. WE DON'T KILL THEM BECAUSE OF IT! WE ARE NOT ANIMALS!
Why you think they have the Special Olympics? According to what you say, these children are not appealling and should be eradicated. You must think these Special Olypics events are ludicrous. Lifting up the diversity of these kids? If they are such a burden to people, why lift them up after passing down that birth canal? What changed? Their location?

You can try and claim that these viable unborn lives are somehow less deserving of the right to life, but you would be embracing the same mind set that has killed millions of Jews and Black people for supposedly being inferior.

Dee

@We_are_accountable

**** Wow, this is where mankind wallows without God's humanity. 

Wow! This is where mankind gets to make their own choices ........God humanity?? You mean like letting kids be born with Downs what a great god you worship 

****They become like animals killing their own young for sake of conveience. Truly sick! 

But you kill animals to eat ? You think bringing Downs babies into the world is great ......truly sick 

Dee

@We_are_accountable

**** Wow, this is where mankind wallows without God's humanity. 

Wow! This is where mankind gets to make their own choices ........God humanity?? You mean like letting kids be born with Downs what a great god you worship 

****They become like animals killing their own young for sake of conveience. Truly sick! 

But you kill animals to eat ? You think bringing Downs babies into the world is great ......truly sick 

We_are_accountable

@DDAN15

Seriously? You are basing a person's worth by their IQ? Do you have any idea how condescending and diabolical that type of thinking is?

I guess all the slower kids in schools should be separated from the so called intelligent kids, and told that they are inferior. In this sick world, IQ is the main factor in basing a person's worth.

We_are_accountable

@MichaelElpers

It's nice to see there are a few people with the humanity to discern right from wrong on this site. We are living in a self consumed world whereby one's convenience supercedes an innocent life.

The next time you listen to Democrats talking about Special Need's children, you are listening to total hypocrites who care about themselves and politics far more then these innocent lives.

MayCaesar

We_are_accountable said:

@MayCaesar

It's not about being appealing to someone! It's about humanity! Can you grasp the difference? It's about loving our children regardless their health problems, and when fnding out they have some problems, being there for them, not killing them!

Sure it's unfortunate when our children have Special Needs and health issues. WE DON'T KILL THEM BECAUSE OF IT! WE ARE NOT ANIMALS!
Why you think they have the Special Olympics? According to what you say, these children are not appealling and should be eradicated. You must think these Special Olypics events are ludicrous. Lifting up the diversity of these kids? If they are such a burden to people, why lift them up after passing down that birth canal? What changed? Their location?

You can try and claim that these viable unborn lives are somehow less deserving of the right to life, but you would be embracing the same mind set that has killed millions of Jews and Black people for supposedly being inferior.

When a child has not been born yet, then what you are loving is a ghost from the future. I am all for substituting that ghost for a real healthy kid. Nobody is talking about killing already born kids with health problems.

We are actually animals biologically. A human is an animal, a mammal to be specific.

Claiming that some living beings are less important is a part of humanity. You probably do not think much of mosquitoes you kill, do you? I do not either. That only has a very loose connection with endorsing genocide against groups of living autonomous humans. If it makes you better sleep at night to think that my position is morally equivalent to that of slavers or anti-Semites, then so be it!

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar I'm not saying that it is permissible to treat children (or adults) poorly based on having mental illness, but the thing is that if they don't exist then it can't happen.

What people decide is good for them or not can not be objectively good or bad, because like you said it is based on subjective opinion.

However, when we are dealing with a society, there are things the society can do as a whole that are objectively superior for the society than other things, for example if  murder was legal, that would put a strain on your societies population and may lead to its demise. Therefore, it is objectively better for a society to not allow murder, and even better for a society to punish or isolate those who do murder, and even better to actively prevent murder.

saying "I think we should allow murder in society" is a subjective opinion, so is "i think we should make murder illegal", but you are wrong to say that these subjective opinions of what is good and bad are what builds a society and makes it function. What actually makes a society work are objective things which are true from a physical standpoint.

A society without down syndrome is objectively better, because on a statistical level people who are never repressed due to a genetic disability tend to function better, meaning they can contribute more to society on average than those who do not.

Lets do a thought experiment, consider these 4 societies, and lets say they all exist in parallel to each other with all other potentials being equal (resources, geography, population) except the following for each society:

1. A society where no one has down syndrome because all babies with down syndrome are aborted in addition to being legal
2. A mixed society where abortions do not correlate with down syndrome
3. A mixed society where abortions are outlawed
4. A society where everyone has down syndrome because all babies without it are aborted

I think the evolution of each society would go something like this:

1. This society will have slightly reduced population growth, but will have a relatively stronger economy in the long run due to the increased high education jobs per capita. This society is highly equal in both opportunity, and has the longest life span relative to the others.
2. This society has a slightly reduced population growth, but will have an economy comparable to the average economic growth. This society still has high equality of opportunity, and an average life span comparable to the real world.
3. This society has the highest population growth of all societies on this list. This would provide an early advantage economically, but in the long run it would become a strain on the resources of the nation, which would likely lead to more authoritarian policies, resource shortages, and perhaps more overt population control methods. This society would be the less equal than the previous two but should still maintain an approximately average life span.
4. This society has the slowest population growth, shortest average life span, slowest economic growth, and would be less equal due to the disparity between high functioning and low functioning individuals.

From this perspective, we can see that if we were to run this simulation a 1,000 times, we would expect the first society to last the longest and be the most stable, particularly because it is an objectively better way to structure society.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable

We_are_accountable said:

@Happy_Killbot

It doesn't take a genious to see that the horrors of Nazi Germany are still all around us. Nazi's killed Jewish people because they believed them to be inferior to the Arien race.

Slave owners killed Black people because of a perceived belief that they were less human than white people.

Now we have people like you declaring that Special Needs children, who might not live up to yor desired IQ, declaring they also do not deserve life.

You can repeating the same lie, that viable babies are not human lives worth protecting, till you are dead in your grave, and you will always be barbarically wrong! Innocent human ife must always be protected no matter what some barbaric dictator or Leftwing Party says.

How would you like some selfish elite declaring your life worthless? Maybe your race or ethnicity is deemed inferior to some.That is no different from what you are doing. That viable unborn baby is every bit a human life, deserving of protection, as you.

That's terrible! I wonder who would say that one group or race is inferior to some or anything like that...



Oh yeah. That guy.

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

"Quality" of a society is, in turn, subjective and does not have to be defined in terms of its longevity or stability. One could argue that Ancient Greek society was much more pleasant to live in for the vast majority of people than the Ottoman society, despite the former lasting much less and being much more unstable and dynamic.
I would rather live in a happy society that collapses a year after I die, than in a miserable society that keeps on existing forever. And what is a quality of a society if not what it is like to be living in it?

The experiments you are suggesting might not go as you expect. While a society where only people with Down syndrome exist is unlikely to get anywhere, mixed societies might very well outperform the society in which Down syndrome is actively being eradicated. For example, perhaps this type of small diversity, where a small minority of the population has Down syndrome, is healthy in some way, spurring genetic and medical research, for example. Or maybe there is some moral aspect to the society coming with aborting everyone who has Down syndrome related to lower respect to humans with impairment that in the long run is going to undermine that society.

Such analyses suffer from lack of control for indirect effects strongly correlated with studied phenomena. In the real world, we can never just introduce some rule in a society; that rule has to naturally arise as a result of deep societal evolution, and attempts to force it are likely to fail. In turn, that societal evolution may have many different effects that are not obvious at the first glance.
In mainland China, communists have virtually eradicated superstitions. You would think that it is a good thing, yet those superstitions played a vital role in people's world view, and, eradicated, they left a vacuum which resulted in a significant cultural degradation. Taiwan, in which eradication of superstitions never happened, has a much more vibrant and modern culture. You would not expect it by just considering the role superstitions play in a society - but superstitions do not exist in a vacuum and are tightly connected to many aspects of culture. You cannot just consider a society with superstitions and the same society without superstitions by assuming everything else to be equal: this would be an unrealistic comparison.

Happy_Killbot

@MayCaesar Well, what if you could have both longevity and stability?

You are still looking at this from your personal perspective as an individual, to understand what I mean you have to disconnect your personal opinions and subjective values and look at things as a whole, and on average. What is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander, but they will tend to correlate.

When you admit that a society composed entirely of people with down syndrome is unlikely to get anywhere, you sort of acknowledge what I am trying to convey, some societies will just outperform other societies because of the way they are structured and how they function, the same way calculator is objectively better at performing calculations than an abacus, but it can not hold a candle to modern super computers.

maybe there is some hidden advantage to down syndrome that we are currently unaware of, that is completely possible, but I doubt that this advantage would be more valuable to society than simply eliminating the disorder through abortion, especially if this lesson or these values are something we have already learned and has already been integrated into our culture.

Running such an experiment like this is completely impractical, but the principal behind it still makes sense, even if we have to form these societies by evolving the traits to a more natural position, thus creating a sort of time invariable extrapolation of it's current state, which just happens to intersect at a point that is close enough to be considered an equal starting point. It might be that superstitions have an objective role in society that promotes cultural development and solidifies a world view, but it might also be argued that these ideas detract from society in certain ways, by promoting thinking and prohibiting certain actions that have no consequence, such as eliminating the 4th floor.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

LOL, you are the one supporting inhumanity to others, and try to deflect it with distorted lies about Trump! What a waste of time.

IGNORE!

We_are_accountable

@MayCaesar

I guess you have not seen an ultra sound of an unborn baby?

It's no ghost! It a moving living human being, and you embarrass yourself every time you to try to deny it.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable



Hmm... Yes... I am the one supporting inhumanity...

We_are_accountable

@Dee

Yes, Hitler said the same things about Jews. Eradicate them!!!!

Different time, different victims, different dictators.

IGNORE

Dee

@We_are_accountable

****Yes, Hitler said the same things about Jews. Eradicate them!!!!

And that is relevant how? Your ancestors beat , raped and abused slaves 

****Different time, different victims, different dictators.

Read above ....you’re a born dictator 

****IGNORE 

You’re dismissed you’re probably late for your Klan meet up 

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[is an Internet adageasserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends

Dee

@We_are_accountable

****Yes, Hitler said the same things about Jews. Eradicate them!!!!

And that is relevant how? Your ancestors beat , raped and abused slaves 

****Different time, different victims, different dictators.

Read above ....you’re a born dictator 

****IGNORE 

You’re dismissed you’re probably late for your Klan meet up 

Godwin's law (or Godwin's rule of Hitler analogies)[is an Internet adageasserting that "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds, the point at which effectively the discussion or thread often ends

MayCaesar

@Happy_Killbot

That is my point though: there is no such thing as something being "good for the society" with no regard to its members. What is a society, if not a collection of individuals with relations between them? And since the individuals have subjective opinions on the matter, the whole society also can only be evaluated in a subjective way.

Longevity and stability do not have to be paramount. You can look at a society as a "fluid" consisting of individual members, with no regard to those members' well-being, and only be interested in the evolution of this "fluid", but that will not be very interesting, will it?

There are some properties of societies that the vast majority of people agree are important. For example, only a small minority of people will argue that a richer society is not in some way better than a poorer society. Virtually everyone who has been to both places will agree that the US society is better than the North Korean society. But it is still merely a preference, even if a very common one.

The point I was trying to make with regards to insufficiency of such analyses is that something perceived as negative does not exist in isolation and usually comes in package with other entities, some of which can by the same metric be perceived as positive. Is a society full of conspiracy theorists a bad one? In some ways, perhaps, but at the same time it is a society of people who, at least, try to think critically about things - which, perhaps, in the long run will outweigh the negatives.
Furthermore, as you hinted, what is bad for the individual might be good for other individuals. Suppose there was some weird virus that would disadvantage a small fraction of the population, but strongly advantage everyone else. Say, a synthetic virus has a 99.9% chance to make you extremely healthy, strong and virtually immortal, and 0.1% to make you into a broken creature barely able to survive with the help of others. Now, there are obvious moral issues with releasing such a virus... But societies with less regard for individual rights, such as the North Korean society, might not see these issues as important and release the virus - and, likely, as a result strongly outcompete the rest of the world in many regards. 
Obviously, this is too fantastic a scenario. But the general point stands: virtually everything has both positive and negative sides, sometimes very non-obvious ones. It is quite possible that eradicating Down's syndrome has some negative effects not directly related to the syndrome itself that we are not aware of.

That does not mean, of course, that scientists should not be eradicating it. It just means that we should hold our horses before celebrating every seemingly major accomplishment and take some time to analyse possible unintended consequences.


@We_are_accountable ;

Who cares about ultra-sounds? It is a creature with no sentience, unable to survive without a host. It is less alive than a mosquito, and if you do not value life of a mosquito much, then why would you value life of that creature?