Good. Choosing to raise a kid with Down syndrome is selfish, especially if the woman is over age 42 and still trying to pop out natural kids.

fuck you Lucy.. people like you are Irresponsible. I am sorry that you have to have a downs syndrome child all by your lonesome but dont expect someone else to carry that burden in todays society especially if the means exists to negate the possibility..

I'm rather shocked by the first couple of posts.

I'm rather shocked by the first couple of posts.
Yea, they are rather negative.

At least now parent's have the choice of raising that child, or trying again for one without down's syndrome. It's better to get an abortion then to have a kid you don't want.

I'm rather shocked by the first couple of posts.

It's a harsh position, I know, but there is no reason to produce a child that will be a chronic burden if you can avoid it. Also, like I said, a woman over age 42 has something like a 1 in 30 chance of having a Down baby. If she does have one, and then whines to everyone else about it, I really have no sympathy.

It's better to get an abortion then to have a kid you don't want.

Exactly.

Children and adults with Down Syndrome are a blessing. I've worked with both for years and can say it's been an amazing experience in my life.

I see it as one step closer to Gattica.

wow if homosexuality is genetical and they find a test to test for it....will the homosexuals all of a sudden become pro life when parents start aborting fetuses cause they might be gay?

Gattaca

Children and adults with Down Syndrome are a blessing. I've worked with both for years and can say it's been an amazing experience in my life.

Posted by BlueOrange

Yes, they're a blessing because they keep people like you employed. Otherwise, I think it's safe to say they're a burden.

Sniper, I'm a bit shocked myself. "Fuck you, Lucy?" Man, that's cold.

I'm generally in favor of a woman's right to choose, but wow. My kid's school has a fairly large number of Down's syndrome kids, and they have a lot to offer the world. From everything I can see, their parents are as loving, proud and involved as any other parents. My daughter (first grade) doesn't see these kids as "retarded" or "incapable," just different. Not a bad place to be, in my opinion.

These people aren't pushing their beliefs on anyone. They're offering to open up to and spend time with other families who are making (for some) a difficult decision. And that deserves spite?

FUCK THAT OLD LADY WHO FEEDS THE HOMELESS. FUCK HER IN THE ASS.

That's exactly what you sound like.

Children and adults with Down Syndrome are a blessing.

Does this not also apply to cystic fibrosis? Or leukemia? How about spina bifida?

What makes Down so special? People think Down syndrome and they think of Corky from "Life Goes On." In reality, Down syndrome is no more "special" than any other birth defect with lifelong sequelae.

Some people with Down syndrome function at a high level with a measure of independence and quality of life.

This is a very complex issue, but I don't think it's selfish of these parents to want that message to be conveyed to prospective parents after a positive Down test.

A close relative of mine went through a tough time when a prenatal test detected a possibility of severe abnormalities. It was a false alarm, thankfully, but it underscored the difficult decision faced here by any parent.

I've learned enough about Down syndrome that I would not choose abortion because it was detected in the womb. But I would not force that choice on others.

My kid's school has a fairly large number of Down's syndrome kids, and they have a lot to offer the world.

Like what?

FUCK THAT OLD LADY WHO FEEDS THE HOMELESS. FUCK HER IN THE ASS.

That's exactly what you sound like.

If she's offering her services as an adoptive parent for kids born with it, fine.

Personally, I'd prefer my kids to be born as healthy as possible.

wow if homosexuality is genetical and they find a test to test for it....will the homosexuals all of a sudden become pro life when parents start aborting fetuses cause they might be gay?

I can imagine a parent not minding having a gay kid before not minding having a Down kid.

Does this not also apply to cystic fibrosis? Or leukemia? How about spina bifida?

You're honestly comparing Down syndrome to spina bifida? Do you not know anybody with the syndrome?

Personally, I'd prefer my kids to be born as healthy as possible.

----

I think most if not all would. That's not the point. The question is what would you do if that was not the case.

My brother is an alcoholic, mildly schizophrenic, and has epilepsy. He's definately been a burden. He has no job and cannot support himself at 35 years of age. From the sounds of some people of this board, he should have been aborted too.

Do you not know anybody with the syndrome?

Of course I do, both of my parents are/were in special education. I just get tired of people making it sound like Down syndrome kids are some sort of miracle as opposed to all the other birth defects.

And by the way, spina bifida also has varying levels of severity, but people never seem to remember that. I guess having your spinal cord sticking out of your back just isn't as "cute" as having a mongoloid child.

A burder to whom? Do you have a mentally impaired child in your family? Do you take care of anyone with Downs Syndrome? I'm guessing your only exposure is pointing them out at McDonalds and staring.

"...people like you..." Nice, you my friend, are an idiot.

From the sounds of some people of this board, he should have been aborted too.

If he had been, how could you have any feelings about him? Think Zen, now...

My brother is an alcoholic, mildly schizophrenic, and has epilepsy. He's definately been a burden. He has no job and cannot support himself at 35 years of age. From the sounds of some people of this board, he should have been aborted too.

Only if your parents weren't willing to take on that burden. If they would not properly take care of him because he was a bigger burden then a normal child, then they should not have had him. It seems that they can and are taking care of him however, so I personally am not saying he should have been aborted.

My kid's school has a fairly large number of Down's syndrome kids, and they have a lot to offer the world.

Like what?

Posted by ness_gadol at 2007-05-09 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Well, Ness, what would I say that would satisfy you? What does anyone have to offer the world? It's all relative.

I'll just say this. There's a Down syndrome kid a couple of doors away from me. She rides a bike. She plays with the other neighborhood kids. She's cute and friendly and reasonably self-sufficient. She's moving from grade to grade (at a school that is consistently ranked among the highest-achieving in the state), and one day I can imagine her living on her own, with a job. No, not as a surgeon, but certainly somewhere.

Many people with Down syndrome have only mild mental retardation and can function pretty well.

Free your mind.

If my brother had been aborted, my life would be radically different.

I would not have met my best friend through my brother which in turn, I would have not moved 1000 miles away from where I grew up which in turn, I would have not met my wonderful wife, which in turn, I would not have a wonderful son.

Man this thread is filled with some callous, cold-hearted shit.


The lack of value that some place on a human life is mind-boggling.

Pirate-
Something else would have happened instead, and you would either be just as happy, less happy, or even happier. Really doesn't matter. "Life Goes On."

Of course I do, both of my parents are/were in special education. I just get tired of people making it sound like Down syndrome kids are some sort of miracle as opposed to all the other birth defects.

Do you expect to hear any parent to admit that having kids can be a huge burden and often a pain in the ass? That would be like my wife telling me that size matters.

Or less happy or very miserable.

Man this thread is filled with some callous, cold-hearted shit.

You'd never consider aborting a child because of prenatal tests that detected a severe problem?

You'd never consider aborting a child because of prenatal tests that detected a severe problem?


No, I wouldn't.

The lack of value that some place on a human life is mind-boggling.

I value human life just as much as I value all life.

This is coming from a guy who avoids stepping on ants on the sidewalk. Still, I think it's a totally valid choice to abort a kid with Down or any other potentially debilitating genetic disease.

Do you expect to hear any parent to admit that having kids can be a huge burden and often a pain in the ass?


Raising kids is a colossal burden and is often a tremendous pain in the ass.

Or less happy or very miserable.

I said that. My point is, you can't know. Your argument is kinda pointless. No offense.

Many people with Down syndrome have only mild mental retardation and can function pretty well.


You can't know until the kid is born. I'm not one to take risks with other people's lives.

No, I wouldn't.

Well, luckily for you a lot of kids with really bad problems abort themselves.

Raising kids is a colossal burden and is often a tremendous pain in the ass.

So why make it harder on both yourself and your kid?

Raising kids is a colossal burden and is often a tremendous pain in the ass.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-09 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

You've noticed that too? I thought I was the only one!
:-)

That would be like my wife telling me that size matters.

She only uses that line in the sex personals.

Children and adults with Down Syndrome are a blessing.

Does this not also apply to cystic fibrosis? Or leukemia? How about spina bifida?

What makes Down so special? People think Down syndrome and they think of Corky from "Life Goes On." In reality, Down syndrome is no more "special" than any other birth defect with lifelong sequelae.

Posted by ness_gadol

damn right..The agenda here is self serving. These people dont want to be the last ones caring for a downs child especially when the means exists to not have one. I agree with Ness..have them younger or abort the non viable ones.

So why make it harder on both yourself and your kid?


It's an impossible question to answer from a frame of reference that you can understand.

If you have a child of your own some day, you'll discover the answer for yourself.


PS - I am not trying to be snide, some things just have to be experienced in order to be understood.

A close relative of mine went through a tough time when a prenatal test detected a possibility of severe abnormalities. It was a false alarm, thankfully, but it underscored the difficult decision faced here by any parent.

I've learned enough about Down syndrome that I would not choose abortion because it was detected in the womb. But I would not force that choice on others.

Posted by rcade

sorry rcade.. I look at it as a social burden especially when it doesn't have to happen. Want a life changing experience? Join the peace corp.

You'd never consider aborting a child because of prenatal tests that detected a severe problem?


No, I wouldn't.

Posted by JeffJ

THAT is socially irresponsible.. Jeff you bitch about the welfare mommas and people taking money from the government for school and other social programs but YOU in turn would be at the trough raising a child with a severe medical condition. teh only way you wouldn't would be if you had untold millions to support your choice.

Kettle meet pot.

I look at it as a social burden especially when it doesn't have to happen.

Down syndrome isn't passed down from parent to child. It will still occur in the future regardless of how many people aren't having Down kids.

I think both absolute positions are wrong here.

but it underscored the difficult decision faced here by any parent.

I bet it wasn't a difficult decision to get pregnant in the first place...what's stopping them from doing it again? (no pun intended)

THAT is socially irresponsible


What is socially irresponsible about raising a child with birth defects?


How far do you want to take this, Leggo?

Old people can become a burden too. Should we practice Euthenasia to reduce the cost?

At what point is one considered a 'burden'?



You are teetering on a VERY slippery slope, my friend.

It will still occur in the future regardless of how many people aren't having Down kids.


This is true, unless of course you make screening and elimination mandatory. That would never fly anytime soon, but eventually I expect that to be the case with any prenatal diagnosis. Unfortunately, if we can't get already born people to eat healthy and get enough exercise to avoid obesity and diabetes, I doubt people will be convinced that there is a species-wide benefit to reducing the incidence of diseased births.

What is socially irresponsible about raising a child with birth defects?

Asking others for money to do it.

I bet it wasn't a difficult decision to get pregnant in the first place


I have an aunt and uncle that wanted 2 kids. The problem was that my aunt had fertility problems. She did manage to get pregnant twice, although her second child resulted in a miscarriage. Nevertheless, they are thankful for the one child they have.

Old people can become a burden too. Should we practice Euthenasia to reduce the cost?

Eskimos do.

I have an aunt and uncle that wanted 2 kids. The problem was that my aunt had fertility problems.

ADOPT

Eskimos do.


Are you suggesting that we implement euthenasia into our society?

Why stop there?

Why not create a perfect Aryan race?

look at it as a social burden especially when it doesn't have to happen.

Down syndrome isn't passed down from parent to child. It will still occur in the future regardless of how many people aren't having Down kids.

I think both absolute positions are wrong here.

Posted by rcade

huh?

and the test to detect it exists to PREVENT it from occuring. From the journals I have read, it hasn't been conclusively documented that the gene is not inherited. I would suspect it is..

The human genome project WILL be able to determine if prediposition for producing downs children can occur with some probability. Any rate the probability of downs increases with age due to mutations in the germ cell.

YOU can choose what you want to do with your life, but when society at large is burdened with costs associated with it your freedoms and choices will be limited.

Your freedoms stop where mine begin...

Are you suggesting that we implement euthenasia into our society?

It is a valid option.

Why not create a perfect Aryan race?

I would hope that at some point in the future, we will have cured most if not all disease. What's wrong with that?

Old people can become a burden too. Should we practice Euthenasia to reduce the cost?

At what point is one considered a 'burden'?



You are teetering on a VERY slippery slope, my friend.

Posted by JeffJ
not teetering on anything here..this is preventable (for the most part) by a simple test which in turn prevents a burden on society as a whole and the parents in general. The discussion never included widescale involuntary euthanasia and that is just a nice red herring.

I bet it wasn't a difficult decision to get pregnant in the first place...what's stopping them from doing it again? (no pun intended)

Their child is healthy. The prenatal problems were presented as unlikely (perhaps even remote). The risk they took by continuing the pregnancy with additional prenatal care was low.

This is true, unless of course you make screening and elimination mandatory. That would never fly anytime soon, but eventually I expect that to be the case with any prenatal diagnosis.

Why stop there? I want a government that won't let children reach birth unless they have super strength and night vision.

I don't want to live in a world where Uncle Sam controls pregnancy, Ness. That's why I'm pro-choice.

Ha! New Thread fer Spud!

"I think both absolute positions are wrong here."

They usually are.

To Spud this is a simple question of choices.

Until this year, only pregnant women 35 and older were routinely tested to see if their fetuses had the extra chromosome that causes Down syndrome. As a result many couples were given the diagnosis only at birth. But under a new recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, doctors have begun to offer a new, safer screening procedure to all pregnant women, regardless of age.

I don't want to live in a world where Uncle Sam controls pregnancy, Ness. That's why I'm pro-choice.

Posted by rcade

well its coming to a country near you once people inpower figure out that healthcare is a huge controllable variable to GDP [see (C) in the formula]. Preventable diseases and eating healthy will become norm quite possibly by law.

The discussion never included widescale involuntary euthanasia and that is just a nice red herring.


Not at all.


You are defining a 'burden' to society based upon a set of physical characteristics. You then advocate destruction of developing life based upon those characteristics.

If people develop those characteristics later in life, why not advocate their destruction as well - for the betterment of society?

I want a government that won't let children reach birth unless they have super strength and night vision.

It will be beneficial to our species to limit the occurrence of birth defects. Period.

If people develop those characteristics later in life, why not advocate their destruction as well

Be more specific.

It will be beneficial to our species to limit the occurrence of birth defects. Period.


Viewed solely through the prism of biology - yes. Viewed through a prism of humanity - no.


Be more specific.


Where one's health declines to a point of requiring assisted care - nursing home, etc.

Or, if one suffers an accident which leaves them paralyzed, etc.

will the homosexuals all of a sudden become pro life when parents start aborting fetuses cause they might be gay?

Bigger question, would the talibaptists be pro-abortion if it meant wiping out gays?

"Ms. Scott, 55, was born with Down syndrome but is slowly dying from Alzheimer's disease, a progressive, degenerative illness that is destroying her brain. The two conditions are tragically linked; most people with Down syndrome are afflicted with Alzheimer's in middle age, and their final years are marked by a profound intellectual, emotional and physical decline.

Ms. Scott used to love travelling, singing and all things Scottish, including the Highland fling. Now she hates leaving home and spends her days sleeping and wandering in circles.

The culprit appears to be chromosome 21. Most people with Down syndrome have an extra copy, and it carries the instructions for a protein believed to play an important role in Alzheimer's. That extra chromosome shaped their brains and their bodies in the womb, and now it is shaping their final years, robbing them of the skills they worked so hard to learn, along with their memories and their personalities.

In 1920, a baby with Down syndrome was expected to live only nine years. Improved medical care including cardiac surgery and better antibiotics means individuals with the syndrome are living much longer, to 55 or more.

But studies show that by 40 their brains are becoming clogged by the plaques and tangles characteristic of Alzheimer's. By 65, three-quarters of them have dementia, Dr. Schupf says. That compares with roughly one in 10 people over 65 in the general population.
"

I wonder how many parents still consider their child a blessing when they have to deal with this too.

Natural selection in humans, especially in America, has really been on a rapid decline in my opinion from the last 60 years due to improvments in medicine. While severe birth defects, I consider Downs's in this group, should be aborted in my opinion the problem is future selection for abortion will be sure to eventually include gender, sex orientation, height, eye color, beauty and on and on as Americans, in general, have become very competitive and narcissistic in recent years. "I want the best, now"

The funny thing is in a few years Evangelical Christians will be actively fighting for the lives of Gays and Lesbians to be included in society.

There is an interesting possibility that abortions for "aesthetic" reasons may be the lead to abortion being banned in the US.

This is all about choice, folks.

For a fetus, it's the choice of the actual human being the fetus is in.

In the case of a human adult or senior, it is the choice of that person only.

Sorry to see that there are some who appear (and I may be misreading their statements. If so, please let me know) to be advocating mandated abrotion of DS kids or euthenising sick adults/seniors.

Viewed solely through the prism of biology - yes. Viewed through a prism of humanity - no.


Tell me how humanity benefits from birth defects.

It will be beneficial to our species to limit the occurrence of birth defects. Period.

How does it benefit our species to limit non-hereditary birth defects? We could abort 100 percent of Down kids today, and in 100 years when the sea levels rise and the world descends to post-civilization Road Warrior anarchy, they'll be having them again.

How does it benefit our species to limit non-hereditary birth defects? We could abort 100 percent of Down kids today, and in 100 years when the sea levels rise and the world descends to post-civilization Road Warrior anarchy, they'll be having them again.

Yes, but at that point, they'll all dress in black leather with football shoulderpads and have wierd, mohawk-like haircuts.

and in 100 years when the sea levels rise and the world descends to post-civilization Road Warrior anarchy, they'll be having them again.

And still aborting them.

Nah, I know what you mean, RCade. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see any real reason why anyone would choose to have a kid that they know will have a less than desirable life.

However, How does it benefit our species to limit non-hereditary birth defects?

Restricting natural childbirth after the age of 40 would cut down on Down syndrome.

Not at all

jeffJ

yes it is.. continue to climb for the moral high ground..

It will be beneficial to our species to limit the occurrence of birth defects. Period.

How does it benefit our species to limit non-hereditary birth defects? We could abort 100 percent of Down kids today, and in 100 years when the sea levels rise and the world descends to post-civilization Road Warrior anarchy, they'll be having them again.

Posted by rcade

You keep bringing this up but ignoring the so called chormosome 21 issue that is linked to downs and alzheimers. Granted environmental factors and age may play a role in gene mutations that also may cause birth defects, but if they are preventable I believe them to be in the best interest of society at large to prevent them. If a simple test is all that is needed (should be mandatory) and the choice to have the child proceeds, the parents should abrogate any and all federal/state aid.

and if in 100 years you have the abherent downs kid in a tribe then that is beyond my control. Guaranteed that child will not live long in a darwin type world.

NO!

People with Down Syndrome are hilarious.

Nah, I know what you mean, RCade. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see any real reason why anyone would choose to have a kid that they know will have a less than desirable life.

Posted by ness_gadol

I look at it as a selfish act on the part of the parents 99% of the time..They waited and waited and time is running out.

What is everyone so upset about. there not even alive so who cares if they are tested and aborted. its not like they are effecting a real child or a real life...jeez...

Signed,
The Compassionate Left...

And still aborting them.

You missed the point of the hypothetical. Like the entirety of humankind prior to the present generation of breeders, our future leather-clad survivalists won't know the Down kid is coming until he's here.

The lack of value that some place on a human life is mind-boggling.

Unless, of course, they're Iraqi, then they've got it coming. Just consider any aborted Downs fetuses as collateral damage on the war on terrible diseases, and it'll be fine.

Like the entirety of humankind prior to the present generation of breeders, our future leather-clad survivalists won't know the Down kid is coming until he's here.

They used to just let them die. Seems like a reasonable solution, given your hypothetical.

NG3,

Nobody has ever said that the lives of Iraqi people have no value.

Do you seriously think the US intention is to just kill them all. Come on, regardless of the acts of a few I still feel American's are significantly better than that..

It should be considered that a great number of Downs syndrome folks do not live with family, are shipped off to institutions or group homes to watch TV for the rest of their lives. The condition does not only bring on retardation but other problems which can be painful and further limit their ability to enjoy their lives. Personally, if I knew I was carrying a Downs Syndrome fetus I would abort it and to hell with any of the holier than thou folks who would criticize me for it.
I really don't care what they think about it, they aren't going to have to raise that child or watch him/her suffer.
They can choose to do what they feel is best and hopefully will never get the power to prevent the rest of us from doing the same thing.

Army: Check some of the Iraqi postings. Haditha was a good thing, WP is a good thing in civilian areas and so on. Many of the Bushie posters here seem to think dead Iraqis are indeed a good thing.

Then they need to be checked for mental stability. Honest and descent Americans, IMHO, believe that those things are wrong.

Like I said before, the actions of few should not be the prevailing view of the mass.

I think everyone is overlooking the real reason these parents don't want DS fetuses aborted.

Is it because DS children are a treasure? NO.

Is it because DS is easy to deal with? NO.

The parent evangelists are driven by a deep-seated fear for their children's well-being in a world where there are fewer people like them.

Others admit freely to a selfish motive for their new activism. "If all these people terminate babies with Down syndrome, there won't be programs, there won't be acceptance or tolerance," said Tracy Brown, 37, of Seattle, whose 2-year-old son, Maxford, has the condition. "I want opportunities for my son. I don't know if that's right or wrong, but I do."

Self-interest.

"There are many couples who do not want to have a baby with Down syndrome," said Deborah A. Driscoll, chief of the obstetrics department at the University of Pennsylvania and a lead author of the new recommendation from the obstetricians' group. "They don't have the resources, don't have the emotional stamina, don't have the family support. We are recommending this testing be offered so that parents have a choice."

For myself, kids are hard enough to raise without the added problems that DS create. If the test had been available when I was having kids, and had the test been positive, I would have chosen to abort the child.

BUT, that is my choice, and I don't think that should be pushed onto another parent who may have the emotional strength and ability to care for a special needs child.

It comes down to CHOICE.

Legio,

You keep bringing this up but ignoring the so called chormosome 21 issue that is linked to downs and alzheimers.

Translocational Trisonomy 21 (the genetic kind) accounts for a small percentage of Downes Syndrome victems. A vast majority of these people have Trisonomy 21 due to random mistakes occuring during formation of the chromosomes.

"Down syndrome isnt passed down from parent to child." -RCade

Correction: Down Syndrome cases have been seen as a genetic aberration that IS hereditary, caused by translocation. Further, this incidence is not associated with maternal age and the risk is substantially lower. Approximately 1 in 5 if the mother is the carrier & 1 in 20 if the carrier is the father.

-MsChris

"a common occurence in the ancient world"


THIS IS SPARTA!!

Legio,


The full complement of human chromosomes is 46. If a child is diagnosed with Trisonomy 21/Down Syndrome, in lay terms this just simply means, there is the presence of a extra chromosome.

Further...

The test utilized to evaluate congenital anomalies, mental retardation, and serious congenital diseases such as DS is called a Chromosome Karyotype Test.

-MsChris

I would much rather have a down syndrome Kid than a snot nosed punk assed heathan. Seems to Me the ones with special needs/Hanidcaps are where You will find the Godly kind of Love everyone should have. They never take ANYTHING for granted like "Normal" folks do. PLUS they appreciate what they can do and strive extra hard to try and do what they can't. This is tantamount to Doing what Adolph Hitler did and developing a "Master Race" of nothing but Perfect children. This is Bullshit of the HIGHEST order. Utter and complete Balderdash.

Larry

My daughter (first grade) doesn't see these kids as "retarded" or "incapable," just different. Not a bad place to be, in my opinion.

Posted by cbob at 2007-05-09 09:40 AM

Different in a special kind of retarded incabable way. Ahh, look at how cute he is, he can almost tie his shoes! That's adorable! (for a 25 year old)

Legio,

My assertion is this isn't random at all

And in most cases, you're wrong.

I read the article and I still have a question:

Does this test tell you that your baby will DEFINITELY be born with down syndrome or that there is just a chance that it may occur?

Commonsense---use some

Commonsense,

Just a chance not a gaurantee.

DragonLady,

Self interest is the only reason humans acomplish anything are you saying it's bad?


To everyone.

I'm really considering just leaving the blog. Acording to almost everyone here I should not have been born and just aborted. Lets see I was adopted so that is strike one why did mama give me up for adoption she should have just stuck a needle in my head. I have MS well damn I'm older now but I will be a "burden" on society in a few years so I probably ought to save everyone the trouble and just slit my wrist now.

I won't even get into my adopted son I know you all think he should have been snuffed too.

Yet you wonder why everyone hates the Republicans and the Dems still can't win the white house?

My daughter (first grade) doesn't see these kids as "retarded" or "incapable," just different. Not a bad place to be, in my opinion.

Posted by cbob at 2007-05-09 09:40 AM

Different in a special kind of retarded incabable way. Ahh, look at how cute he is, he can almost tie his shoes! That's adorable! (for a 25 year old)

Posted by bigjohn_1972 at 2007-05-09 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

For your sake I hope you are never in a situation in which you are in need of compassion, since you show none yourself.

Tao,


I guess I'd better slit my wrist too, I've got a beer gut and I found a gray hair this morning.


My 2 boys are perfectly healthy, but they may, at some point, become a burden. I guess I should take them out to the woodshed and shoot them now so that society can be spared later.


And to address Legio's point regarding a burden - spending money to preserve life is money well-spent IMO.

"Self interest is the only reason humans acomplish anything are you saying it's bad?"

Nonsense. People frequently act against their self-interests. That's one reason economic models based on that premise generate lousy forecasts so often.

People frequently act against their self-interests.


True, some people vote Democrat.

"True, some people vote Democrat."

Actually, no, they don't.

Hans

Legio,

My assertion is this isn't random at all

And in most cases, you're wrong.

Posted by Pleasantville

And you conclude this with what data einstein? Just because YOU believe it to be so doesn't prop up your misguided assertion.. and btw dickhead you can't prove me wrong either.

"Just a chance not a gaurantee."

How do you figure? If it's a karyotype test (which in my understanding it is) there either is or isn't an extra copy of chromosome 21.

And to address Legio's point regarding a burden - spending money to preserve life is money well-spent IMO.

Posted by JeffJ

And I dont give a shit what you do with YOUR own money as long as it doesn't cost me or society coin.

If you want spend your lifelong savings on having the worlds largest party watching a one legged whore have sex with an elephant ..super duper..dont send me the bill


The moral PC police here are quick to try and turn this into you must hate babies and old people argument but the simple fact remains that a simple test (in most cases) can help prevent medical and societal burden for a lot of genetic burdens.. being irresponsible is not an excuse.

The moral PC police here are quick to try and turn this into you must hate babies and old people argument

The old people thing was simply applying your underlying premise to a different demographic. It has nothing to do with 'hatred', as I don't believe that you hate babies, or old people.


Am I to assume you are against ALL government assistance (Medicare, unemployment, etc), based on this:

And I dont give a shit what you do with YOUR own money as long as it doesn't cost me or society coin.



the simple fact remains that a simple test (in most cases) can help prevent medical and societal burden for a lot of genetic burdens.. being irresponsible is not an excuse.


It's not a matter of irresponsibility. It's simply a matter of placing a high value on human life; a value that transcends money.


I don't view mental retardation or physical deformity as a good excuse to terminate a life. Obviously you see it differently. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

"It's simply a matter of placing a high value on human life; a value that transcends money."

Time and again humans have shown, through their actions, that value of human life is sometimes very, very cheap.

The sad part is that money ("a value that transcends money") is often times the very reason why the value of human life is so cheap.

Hans

Here we go again.

I Do NOT fear Science.

I stand with Right of Choice.

Oscar,


How do you feel about compelling someone to have an abortion, because their developing child will be a 'burden' on society?

Jeff - - does Right of Choice - - have an alternate meaning?

Oscar,

I wasn't assigning that position to you, I was asking how you felt about it.

because their developing child will be a 'burden' on society?

Let's rephrase that: how about if the child was going to be born HIV positive and runs the risk of infecting other children?

Let's rephrase that: how about if the child was going to be born HIV positive and runs the risk of infecting other children?


That's a pretty good question.

I still say it's not a valid reason to terminate a life. Using that premise we could justify killing everybody in the world that is an HIV carrier.

Let's rephrase that: how about if the child was going to be born HIV positive and runs the risk of infecting other children?

Posted by ness_gadol at 2007-05-09 04:58 PM | Reply

That is the typical thought process of someone Your age. Let's just get rid of the "Junk" in society. Let's just have Pure Babies whom are without blemish. Yeah that sounds just lovely. Oh I have some bad news for You Your baby will be born with (Insert some disease here) You want to abort or not?? Yes please I don't want a fucked up baby I want a perfect baby. Yeah that sends a great message to society. If You have something wrong with You You are a less than and should have been discarded at birth. Yeah what a lovely world You dream of.

Larry

Your baby will be born with (Insert some disease here) You want to abort or not??

Depends. Cleft lip? No, fixable. Asthma? No, treatable. Down syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, Tay Sachs(which is fatal in childhood anyway)? Yes, they are permanent.

Yeah what a lovely world You dream of.


A world where no children are forced to live lives at a serious disadvantage to everyone else? A world where kids who can be diagnosed with a fatal genetic disease can be aborted instead of having to be born knowing they will shortly die? What's so bad about that?

Using that premise we could justify killing everybody in the world that is an HIV carrier.

Now, I'm not advocating this, I just want your opinion:

If killing everyone who has AIDS tomorrow would permanently eradicate the virus, would it be worth it?

*HIV, not AIDS.

Good stuff, Larry.

You are justifying my decision to ask you to visit this thread.

A world where kids who can be diagnosed with a fatal genetic disease can be aborted instead of having to be born knowing they will shortly die? What's so bad about that?


It's not how long you live, but how you live that is important. My neighbor's kid has sistic fibrosis (sp?). He isn't expected to live very long. He started Kindergarten this year and is a happy, well-adjusted child.


If killing everyone who has AIDS tomorrow would permanently eradicate the virus, would it be worth it?

No.

I have a step sister with Downs Syndrome. My stepson has Fetal Alcohol Effects.

My step sister is a Blessing to us. She is always smiling, always wanting to help us, a very loving, happy woman.

We all have our disadvantages in one form or another. And I don't believe it's right to abort out of imperfection.

A world where no children are forced to live lives at a serious disadvantage to everyone else? A world where kids who can be diagnosed with a fatal genetic disease can be aborted instead of having to be born knowing they will shortly die? What's so bad about that?

Posted by ness_gadol at 2007-05-09 05:12 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

And deprive the world of the love that they can share?? I think not.

Larry

We all have our disadvantages in one form or another. And I don't believe it's right to abort out of imperfection.

Is being unwanted a disadvantage?

"Is being unwanted a disadvantage?"

Is this your defense for abortion? Being unwanted?

There are plenty of people in this country who want to adopt.

Abortion is NOT the answer!

Lisa,


You go, girl!

If killing everyone who has AIDS tomorrow would permanently eradicate the virus, would it be worth it?

----

What if you and half your family had HIV?

And I don't believe it's right to abort out of imperfection.

My misunderstanding. It is not difficult to infer from the above statement that you think it is right to abort for some reasons--just not for imperfection.

Abortion is NOT the answer!

I agree.


PAX

He started Kindergarten this year and is a happy, well-adjusted child.


Of course, he's a child. I met a kid with CF who was waiting for a lung transplant. Really, really cool 9 year old who was hitting on the girls in my class with corny pick-up lines. The point of this whole thing is: why settle for a kid with a serious disease if you don't have to?

Here's another question: if there was a test that could detect antisocial behavior disorder in the womb, would it be worth terminating. Keep in mind that a overwhelming percentage of people who are in prison for violent crimes have ASPD. They are usually a danger to themselves and others. They may be very happy children, but they can't escape their fate.

What if you and half your family had HIV?

I am not afraid of death.

And deprive the world of the love that they can share?? I think not.

Healthy kids can share love too, and are usually around longer. What does love have to do with this?

The point of this whole thing is: why settle for a kid with a serious disease if you don't have to?

Settle? We are talking about a child here, a human being, not shopping around for a car.

What many of you fail to realize is that we all have our crosses to bear. Many life lessons are taught and learned through hard times we have in our lives.

Perserverence, character, strength and love is developed through disadvantages.

I've seen first hand, how very selfish people have changed due to having a child with a disadvantage. Their hearts have softened, their understanding, patience, compassion and love for others has grown.

I'd bet they would say they are far better people because of what they have gone through.

And much happier for it.

We are talking about a child here, a human being, not shopping around for a car.

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's no shortage of children. Why not produce one with the highest chance of being healthy and successful as possible?

It's the way of the future, like it or not.

why settle for a kid with a serious disease if you don't have to?


The operative word being 'settle'.


Ness, the problem here is that you are lacking a common frame of reference - you don't have any kids. Parents simply don't use the word settle when it comes to their children. Parents accept and love their children, with all of their faults.


I don't know how to phrase it differently to get you to understand.


What does love have to do with this?


It has everything to do with this.

If killing everyone who has AIDS tomorrow would permanently eradicate the virus, would it be worth it?

I would hope people in our medical profession would understand the ethical and moral difference between eliminating a disease and eliminating a person.

Maybe that should be day 1 of medical school.

WHat right do we have playing God Ness?? That is what You are doing when You are trying to select the perfect babies and trashing the not so good ones. Utter Poppycock to put it mildly.

Larry

" It is not difficult to infer from the above statement that you think it is right to abort for some reasons"

Excuse me??

I've never said there was a good reason for abortion. Infact, I don't believe there is a good reason to abort. I've been in situations where abortion was encouraged and opted not to...trusting God to do what's best for both myself and my child.

I just don't believe that the government has a right to dictate what a woman can and can not do with her own body.

If a woman aborts, that is between her and God. But I certainly don't encourage abortion!

It's the way of the future, like it or not.

Posted by ness_gadol


Your understanding of human nature is utterly lacking if you truly believe that.

I would hope people in our medical profession would understand the ethical and moral difference between eliminating a disease and eliminating a person.

Of course I do. This is an internet blog, not the WHO. I'm using Rob A Hole's technique of just saying what I think, and seeing what reaction I get.

WHat right do we have playing God Ness??

God who? We "play god" in almost all other realms of our lives. You do realize this, right?

"What does love have to do with this?"

Love has everything to do with this!

Look what happens when tragedy hits a family, a town or a country. People show compassion, love for their fellow man and try and help in any way big or small that they can. People soften.

What a sad world this would be if people started eliminating people with aflictions, with emotional problems, with physical handicaps, who come down with illnesses that aren't easily, if at all curable.

It's worse than ethnic cleansing.

I don't know if you've noticed, but there's no shortage of children. Why not produce one with the highest chance of being healthy and successful as possible?

There is a big difference between preventing an illness or a defect and eliminating a child with one.

There are no shortage of children, but there seems to be shortage of humanity, and if that is the future I certainly don't like it.

Call me a fool, but I think the measure of a civilization or a society is not found in the height of the buildings that are built, the medical marvels that it produces, nor even the art that it creates. The essence of humanity and civilization is found in how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable members of a society--the sick, the poor, children.

Your understanding of human nature is utterly lacking if you truly believe that.

Humans have purposefully murdered abnormal children many, many times in the past. You sure you want to make that statement?

"The essence of humanity and civilization is found in how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable members of a society--the sick, the poor, children"

Beautifully stated!

The essence of humanity and civilization is found in how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable members of a society--the sick, the poor, children.


Tell that to the Romans.

What a sad world this would be if people started eliminating people with aflictions, with emotional problems, with physical handicaps, who come down with illnesses that aren't easily, if at all curable.

It's worse than ethnic cleansing.


Posted by Lisa


Wow!


I didn't even think of it that way.

You are absolutely correct: The pycho-sociological impact would be devastating.

Humans are so arrogant in that they think natural selection does not and should not apply to them. It's a bad policy, and it will correct itself.

The essence of humanity and civilization is found in how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable members of a society--the sick, the poor, children.

----

Well said.

Humans have purposefully murdered abnormal children many, many times in the past. You sure you want to make that statement?

Posted by ness_gadol


Absolutely I do.


We live in a different era.


You claim it's the wave of the future - not in this country it isn't.

My grandmother gave birth to a boy with servere DS. That 'child' lived for 10 days after birth.

I know the pain that this caused my grandmother over the rest of her life.

I know that if she had had the choice of knowing prior to giving birth to something that could not live, she would have opted out of that pregnancy.

It would have made the rest of her life more enjoyable. I cannot imagine the feeling a mother must have after giving birth to an unviable life form.

Some of you might call her or me selfish for feeling that way, but it is what it is.

Bring your first hand accounts to the table, then we can talk about it.

Tell that to the Romans.

Posted by ness_gadol


THIS IS SPARTA!!

Humans are so arrogant in that they think natural selection does not and should not apply to them

----

Except that this man-made selection. The arrogance lies with those that think they should be ones making the selection.

Humans are so arrogant in that they think natural selection does not and should not apply to them. It's a bad policy, and it will correct itself.

Posted by ness_gadol


It has nothing to do with arrogance. In the animal world, female animals mate with the strongest males to keep the gene pool strong.

Humans, through the benefits of our comparative intelligence, have conquered our environment to the point that we don't need to have the strongest possible gene pool. We choose mates for reasons other than superficial ones (who's the strongest and most attractive). Our intelligence and capacity for love is what sets us apart from animals.

You are not comparing apples to apples.

I just don't believe that the government has a right to dictate what a woman can and can not do with her own body.

Lisa,

I don't want to get into this with you right now, but this statements begs all sorts of questions as what constitutes one's own body, responsibility for one's actions and the right of the larger group to impinge on what you believe are the basic rights of the individual--including the right one has over one's body. None are as clear cut as you may think.

cheers

The essence of humanity and civilization is found in how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable members of a society--the sick, the poor, children.

That's certainly one way to look at it. Remember, however, that a species is only as strong as its weakest link.

If we are to ever expand off this planet and reach out across the universe, we will need to be a strong as possible. We cannot simply depend on technology to aide us forever. It will eventually become a huge crutch, if it isn't already.


That's all I'm saying.

You claim it's the wave of the future - not in this country it isn't.

Which is why America will fail.

to the point that we don't need to have the strongest possible gene pool.

And what have we got to show for it? Do you not see why this is a bad thing in the long run?

"None are as clear cut as you may think."

I have said all along that the issue of abortion is multi faceted. No clear cut anything.

"Humans are so arrogant in that they think natural selection does not and should not apply to them."

Abortion is NOT "natural selection". Miscarriage is, but not abortion.

Abortion is a premedidated action...a choice....man's selection. Definately not done by nature!

have conquered our environment

There's no such thing. Just look at Greensburg, KS.

Anyone ever have a pet dog give a litter of pups?

Ever have a litter of pups with a runt in it?

Care to know the natural reason your bitch didn't feed that runt?

Are dogs smarter than you?

They might be.

"The essence of humanity and civilization is found in how it treats the weakest and most vulnerable members of a society--the sick, the poor, children.


Tell that to the Romans."

Hell, tell it to conservatives, whose attitude toward the poor is: Let them eat cake.

Definately not done by nature!

Because it CAN'T be. Take away all of our cool gadgets and drugs, and what do you think would happen?

Until the turn of the century, A Down child would be expected to live at most 10 years.

THAT is natural selection.

What we do now is un-natural, de-selection.

Are dogs smarter than you?

They might be.

Nice analogy, MP.

"What a sad world this would be if people started eliminating people with aflictions, with emotional problems, with physical handicaps, who come down with illnesses that aren't easily, if at all curable.

It's worse than ethnic cleansing."

That isn't what the article is about. Women aren't getting abortions because their fetus has "emotional problems" or some minor physical handicap.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. I think I need to understand more about when the physician can detect the condition. But I don't think it is fair to argue this by framing the issue in dishonesty.

I think I need to understand more about when the physician can detect the condition.

It can be done in the first trimester.

Ness:

I find it very difficult to believe you are studying to become a doctor with all you have said here.

Why become a doctor if you support death for those unhealthy?

Again...I think this is worse than ethenic cleansing.

Has the state of the art for testing changed recently? We (when aged 37) were presented with a the results of a safe test, that presented us with a probability of DS. 'normal' is 1:400, for us it was 1:70.

The question that followed was whether we wanted the more dangerous definitive test - which has a small but real risk of damage to the fetus. If you've just gone through quite some trouble to even get pregnant, and not know beforehand what you would do with a positive test result, the answer wasn't obvious for us. We declined for the test. And found out later we were among the 69.

It scares me a bit that so many commenters would want me to feel guilty for even taking the 'risk'. Talk of the "burden to society" seems to be code for "i don't want my tax dollars spent on caring for retards"...

"Anyone ever have a pet dog give a litter of pups?

Ever have a litter of pups with a runt in it?

Care to know the natural reason your bitch didn't feed that runt?

Are dogs smarter than you?

They might be."

Posted by Manypaths

Sorry, that really needed to be repeated-it's pretty much exactly the point I'm trying to make.

"But I don't think it is fair to argue this by framing the issue in dishonesty. "

Amen. Using language that this is akin to Hitler's policies or an example of "ethnic cleansing" is dishonest hyperbole.

Why become a doctor if you support death for those unhealthy?

There's a difference between treatable illnesses and untreatable genetic conditions which result in early death. I just don't see the point in birthing a doomed child.

" But I don't think it is fair to argue this by framing the issue in dishonesty."

There is no dishonesty what's so ever. I believe you are being dishonest by injecting the word "minor" into your paraphrasing of my comment. So if you want to discuss honesty, I would suggest your posts assert it.

This is about eliminating imperfection. Eliminating children with Downs Syndrome.

Ness,

Just wondering since you are so big on offing people.

Steven Hawking has ALS, he is also one of the best mathematical minds in a generation.

So should we get rid of him since he is a defect?

One of my professors is hosting a cookout, so I'll have to take leave for a couple hours.

I'm looking forward to continuing this thread.

See y'all later.

So should we get rid of him since he is a defect?

That's not what this thread is about, and you know it.

To answer your question, if it were me, I would have considered suicide.

It scares me a bit that so many commenters would want me to feel guilty for even taking the 'risk'. Talk of the "burden to society" seems to be code for "i don't want my tax dollars spent on caring for retards"...

Yep from welfare state liberals no less.

Steven Hawking has ALS, he is also one of the best mathematical minds in a generation.

So should we get rid of him since he is a defect?

Is there even a risk of him reproducing?

Ness,

I hope you go into research and are not a practicing clinician.

"There's a difference between treatable illnesses and untreatable genetic conditions which result in early death. I just don't see the point in birthing a doomed child."

Down Syndrome?? Doomed??

Doomed to what? My step sister is in her late thirties.

You assume that all healthy children live a long full life. That is not the case.

Furthermore, you don't see the point of "birthing" a "doomed" child who will have an early death, what do you suggest we do about a four year old who has been diagnosed with cancer?

You've already suggested that what we do now with all the cool gadgets and drugs is un-natural, de-selection. So, wouldn't it be stopping the natural selection to treat a four year old?

And again....how can you justify your attitude about this issue when you're to be a doctor?

"So should we get rid of him since he is a defect?"

More dishonesty. No one is advocating anything of the sort.

Hate,

Stephen Hawking continues to combine family life (he has three children and one grandchild), and his research into theoretical physics together with an extensive programme of travel and public lectures.

So I guess that would be a yes.

"So should we get rid of him since he is a defect?

That's not what this thread is about, and you know it."

That is exactly what this thread is about, Ness.

From the article:

"parents of children with Down syndrome are concerned about a new trend some liken to eugenics -- 9-in-10 prospective parents, equipped with safe tests that detect the condition in the womb, choose to abort rather than raise such a child."
They eliminate a defective child.

I hope you go into research and are not a practicing clinician.

Try forensic pathology. I want to help put violent criminals in jail.

Is that good enough for you?

Hate,

Stephen Hawking continues to combine family life (he has three children and one grandchild), and his research into theoretical physics together with an extensive programme of travel and public lectures.

So I guess that would be a yes.

Thanks, had no idea that he had kids.

How does he do it?

They eliminate a defective child.

Um, except that no one is talking about prenatal testing for ALS.

Stop being so emotional.

Seriously gone this time.

Later.

" I want to help put violent criminals in jail."

Murder of healthy people = bad

Murder of disadvantaged people = good

????

Yeah Lisa. ALS, Downs, same thing. To quote you, one needs to use the word exactly.....

That is exactly what this thread is about, Ness. Said Lisa.

Nice that your step family had a better experience than mine Lisa. Consider yourselves lucky.

I believe that it is the parents choice to bring a child, disabled or not into this world.

I realize that you disagree.

Dogs just might be smarter........

I think Ness will change His mind when He sees a smaller set of His own eyes looking back at Him saying "I Love You". I am sure that is when He will change His mind and heart. I would bet on that.

Larry

Your very first post here Ness:

"Choosing to raise a kid with Down syndrome is selfish"

Sefish???

How did the fact my step mother not abort my step sister affect your life? How did it inconvinience YOU? Or anyone other than herself??

My step mother is the most selfLESS, caring, giving woman I have known.

You have no idea the sacrifices she has made to make sure her daughter had the best life possible.

That is FAR from selfish!!!!!!!

"Murder of disadvantaged people = good"

Nobody is advocating murder. Unless, of course, you think abortion is murder, in which case, this argument is just another abortion debate.

I tried to save that runt Oohrah.

My dog buried it when I wasn't looking.

Moms know best. I trust them now.

Feel free to judge all that you want.

"What we do now is un-natural, de-selection"

We're practising uncontrolled breeding on a vast scale across the globe.

Do we have the might to control it?

Do we have the right?

Should we?

Wot does it matter if we do and the rest of the world doesn't?

Can should governemnts attempt to legislate family sizes?

The earth can barely sustain the weight she bears at present.

Compared to that truth wot are a couple more DS kids? We already have an unwholesome number of FAS kids and crackbabies and the like born every year anyway and Spud suspects that that subtext factors into folks like Ness' viewpoint here.

But the deal is like Spud sed on his first post on the thread "choice".

There's a difference between advising someone to abort a fetus deemed likely to have DS and mandating the procedure.

The first is a choice.

The second is murder.

That sed, if folk were only allowed to reproduce themselves, ie one child per person, then Spud thinks they would certainly consider this option more seriously, don't you think?

Also are women who "wait too long" to have children and thus are more prone to the liklihood of having a DS child being "selfish" in wanting to keep the child?

To Spud that posits an image of selflessness and selfishness, so total they cancel each other out in a blaze of sparks.

Maybe that's just Spud.

Be Well.

Why don't you just go back to not responding to my posts, Many?

Since you addressed me:

Your experience is obviously the only one that counts...right????

Your opinion is the only right one.

Perhaps your grandmother didn't do everything she could to move on with her life.

We all have had deaths in our families I'm sure. But of course...no one has taken it as hard as your grandmother!!!

No one's life has changed from a death more than your grandmother!!

Give me a break!!

Do I feel badly she lost a child? Of course!

However:

People choose to wallow in self pity. There are options. If she chose to be that way, that was exactly what she wanted.

I've had miscarriages. I wonder what they would be like now if they had lived, I become sad thinking about losing a child. But I haven't let it ruin my life, as you claim your grandmother did. Didn't she find joy in you? Or anyone else in her family?

Your grandmother had the opportunity to hold her child, to touch and kiss her child which is something I wasn't able to do. I consider her Blessed. She had her child 10 days longer than I had mine!
Dogs obviously move on, Many. Your grandmother...according to you didn't.

Who isn't as smart as that dog??

Hate,

you might also be interested to know, Stephen Hawking did not suffer from ALS his entire life. He was in fact perfectly healthy right up until his late college years when he was diagnosed.

Upon being diagnosed is when he really began to work hard on physics.

It has nothing to do with arrogance. In the animal world, female animals mate with the strongest males to keep the gene pool strong.

Humans, through the benefits of our comparative intelligence, have conquered our environment to the point that we don't need to have the strongest possible gene pool. We choose mates for reasons other than superficial ones (who's the strongest and most attractive). Our intelligence and capacity for love is what sets us apart from animals.

You are not comparing apples to apples.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-09 06:01 PM | Reply |


I think this is a funny train of thought. It is our gene pool thru natural selection which has given us the tools to conquer our environment. And I for one am not so daft to think, that its not possible to go backwards in this respect to the point we can no longer effectively conquer our environment.

Thats of course assuming we had actually conquered the environment. We haven't even won a round in that fight.

"I would have considered suicide."

Posted by ness_gadol

I know he drank a lot.
Probably did think about it.
Imagine.
We wouldn't have Hawking radiation to think about.

"We choose mates for reasons other than superficial ones (who's the strongest and most attractive). "

I would question that considering those who feel that imperfect children, children with disabilities should be eliminated.

Makes me wonder how superficial those same posters are when they ARE selecting a mate.

If we are to ever expand off this planet and reach out across the universe, we will need to be a strong as possible. We cannot simply depend on technology to aide us forever. It will eventually become a huge crutch, if it isn't already.

I don't necessarily get this biological/moral imperative to seed the stars.

There is no particular reason for us to expand off of this planet and reach the stars. (I keep on forgeting that we are the generation that was raised on the opening lines of Star Trek.)

You said you are not afraid of death earlier. If so, why be afraid of death of our species?

It seems to me that the death of a species is just an inevitable as the death of an individual.

Perhaps we should worry less about the survival of our descendants and worry more about the survival of the people living here and now. It seems to me that their need is more of a moral imperative.

I think if we figure out how to do that for the least among us, the future will take care of itself.

Cheers

"If we are to ever expand off this planet and reach out across the universe, we will need to be a strong as possible."

What I find interesting is that this is obviously more important to Ness than a helping hand, compassion, love, for his fellow man.

If given a choice between expanding, reaching out across the universe and making earth's inhabitants more compassionate, loving people....I would opt for the latter.

A woman can have an abortion if she thinks it will interfere with her weekend---that's the way it is---and that's the way it should be.

All you "moralists" lining up up judge a womans decisions need to MYOB and STFU.

I didn't see anyone advocating abortion for those who may be handicapped---none---but I see lots of people making judgements about those who make a hard decision on their own. It is not your life so stay the fuck out of it.

Isn't life simple when you live your own?

"I didn't see anyone advocating abortion for those who may be handicapped-"

You must not have been reading!

Very first post:

"Good. Choosing to raise a kid with Down syndrome is selfish"

Furthermore, he doesn't think women over 42 should have chidren.

"especially if the woman is over age 42 and still trying to pop out natural kids."

I was 40 when I had my youngest. My ex mother -in-law was 42.

I'm sure my little guy and my ex sister-in-law would disagree with Ness.

Perhaps the minding of ones own business shouldn't be reserved for us "moralists".

"To Spud that posits an image of selflessness"

Spud is smart tater, with big heart!

Who isn't as smart as that dog??

Posted by Lisa at 2007-05-09 06:54 PM | Reply

Lokisfur for one. Dubya for another. Need I go on??

Larry

Sure I can. What's going on here is that I can't convince you of the truth. Since it also appears that scientists and doctors can not convince you either, I'm fine with the result.

Posted by Pleasantville


nice cut and paste but it only backs up my assertion..


read it again then read my posts again..I understand FULLY basic genetics.

the text states that a small percentage can be directly attributable to the parents another by a trans location error and the balance unexplainable..I believe it is explainable we just don't possess the body of knowledge at this time to understand the process. That is the beauty of science versus religion. science is living body of knowledge always changing..

It's simply a matter of placing a high value on human life; a value that transcends money.


I don't view mental retardation or physical deformity as a good excuse to terminate a life. Obviously you see it differently. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

Posted by JeffJ

and i can respect that choice..

Cool.

Furthermore, he doesn't think women over 42 should have chidren.

Hey, it's your kid, at 1/30 chance of Down, I sure as hell wouldn't risk it. Just don't expect any sympathy when your kid is born retarded.

Murder of healthy people = bad

Murder of disadvantaged people = good

Never said that.

I think Ness will change His mind when He sees a smaller set of His own eyes looking back at Him saying "I Love You".

I was adopted, and I plan on doing the same. Why bring another kid into the world when there are plenty to go around as it is.

If given a choice between expanding, reaching out across the universe and making earth's inhabitants more compassionate, loving people....I would opt for the latter.

That's fine. Spin your wheels trying to improve people's feelings instead of trying to improve people. Good luck with that.

Spin your wheels trying to improve people's feelings instead of trying to improve people.


That's an interesting direction you've taken the discussion, Ness.

I'd like to probe this notion a bit.


To what extent do you feel we, as humans, should go toward strengthening the gene pool?

The weak and feeble-minded among us shouldn't be allowed to breed?

Destroy sickly babies?

Euthanasia?



PS - I use question marks for a reason. I was just providing some examples to give you an idea of what I am looking for.

To what extent do you feel we, as humans, should go toward strengthening the gene pool?


As much as possible. It works for every other species, what makes us think it won't work for ours. If we don't, we will become more and more reliant on technology to the point where there isn't much human left at all. That would be tragic.

"Just don't expect any sympathy when your kid is born retarded.I sure as hell wouldn't risk it. Just don't expect any sympathy when your kid is born retarded."

I wouldn't expect any sypathy if my little guy would have been born with Downs.

Nor do I think any parent of a chid with Downs expects sympathy.

We obviously see a deeper purpose than you do. We see the truth about Downs children, moreso than you do, since you feel they don't have value and enrich those who are around them.

There are more important things in life than a perfect mind, a perfect body. There are more important things in life than making the honor roll at school, than being choosen for the All Conference Baseball team, than making six figures at a job.

There is so much beauty in these people and personally, I have sympathy for you, for not seeing it.

I read the article and I still have a question:

Does this test tell you that your baby will DEFINITELY be born with down syndrome or that there is just a chance that it may occur?

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2007-05-09 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Commonsense---use some

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-05-09 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, according to you Bob, asking a question before making a judgment shows a lack of common sense?

How stupid of me to ask for clarification.

Ness,

I guess the reason you and I see this so differently is due to the prism through which we view this issue.

You are viewing it through the lens of biology, in its most fundamental sense. I am viewing it through the lens of humanity and morality. Hence our diametrically opposed beliefs on how things should be.

I kinda think we've reached an end in this discussion. I can't think of where else to take it, short of re-treading the same arguments, using slightly different language. At this point I make the same offer to you as I did to Legio - how about we agree to disagree?

PS - thank you for the thoughtful discussion. A topic of this nature, with so much underlying emotion, could easily dissolve into an insult-laden slugfest. You never went to that well and I appreciate that.

Nice rebuttal, Common.

since you feel they don't have value and enrich those who are around them.

That sounds pretty selfish, which goes back to my original point.

There is so much beauty in these people and personally, I have sympathy for you, for not seeing it.

Something tells me you don't feel the same way about autism. Or holoprosencephaly.

Ness,


If I recall you are pretty young (early 20's). Don't be surprised if your views on this issue evolve as you get older.

You are viewing it through the lens of biology, in its most fundamental sense.

Pretty much. I think I was just born that way.

I think I was just born that way.

I wonder if a test exists to determine the worldview a developing fetus will have upon maturity?

Dogs also drink out of the toilet, like their butt, and sniff other dogs butts.

lick

If I recall you are pretty young (early 20's).

24.5.

Don't be surprised if your views on this issue evolve as you get older.

I won't be. Like you said, I don't have any kids, so I have no emotional investment. However, I'll still support aborting kids with prenatally diagnosed severe and terminal birth defects. I consider it humane. And I DO support euthanasia, if a patient chooses it.

Does this test tell you that your baby will DEFINITELY be born with down syndrome or that there is just a chance that it may occur?

That is actually an excellent question. I imagine the degree of certainty depends on the test.

When one considers the number of times that labs, hospitals and doctors misread or perform tests incorrectly then one can only wonder at how many healthy babies were aborted by people who wanted to be parents.

I wonder if a test exists to determine the worldview a developing fetus will have upon maturity?

There can't be. World view is based upon life experiences.

There can't be. World view is based upon life experiences.


I know - I was in the process of making an abortion joke, but the I inadvertantly clicked 'publish' before completing my post. It's probably for the best, it probably wasn't going to end up being funny.

"That sounds pretty selfish"

Earlier I believe it was you who asked what value they had or something to that effect. I explained it.

I don't quite understand how that is selfish. I think both parties benefit by the love they give each other.

Isn't that what families are all about?

You make it sound ugly.

How sad.

And I DO support euthanasia, if a patient chooses it.


Is your last name "Kevorkian"? ;-)

" I think I was just born that way."

It's too bad you can't just let other people be born the way they are.

You'd rather abort them.

Ness,


Do you heckle the athletes at the Special Olympics? ;-)

Do you heckle the athletes at the Special Olympics? ;-)

"Arguing on the internet is like being in the Special Olympics: even if you win, you're still retarded."

And with that, I retire.

Catch y'all later.

"It's too bad you can't just let other people be born the way they are. "

Too bad you can't mind your own business and let women make that choice for themselves.

It's too bad that there are such shallow, selfish people who feel that unless a child is perfect, it doesn't deserve to be born. Kill them. That's their answer.

You're obviously one of them.

Too bad there are so many dishonest debaters on this site that can't function without using strawmen.

Too bad you can't mind your own business and let women make that choice for themselves.

Posted by Bill_OReilly at 2007-05-09 10:24 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Clue Phone She IS a Woman. DUH

Larry

DragonLady,

Self interest is the only reason humans acomplish anything are you saying it's bad?

Posted by TaoWarrior

Nope, not saying its a bad thing, but it is something to consider when viewing the article just as you would consider the source of a political quote.

In my post I said MY Choice would be to abort. Then I said I wouldn't want to impose MY CHOICE on someone who was emotionally and monetarily able to support a special needs child.

MY CHOICE was a logical one by my standpoint.

My mother was a Psychiatric Technician with the State from when I was small til she retired a few years ago. She worked with the Developmentally Disabled. I was introduced to the Developmentally Disabled when I was about 7. My mother thinks they are special children, I don't disagree with her. They are special children, but.......

I was not and am not emotionally able to raise such a child. I am being realistic in my view....FOR ME. Not for anyone else.

As I said in my post.....It's all about Choice. Those parents in the article chose to have their children. I don't find that wrong in anyway.

I see nothing wrong with showing a DS child to someone who has to make that decision, but they should be shown the totality of it. Not just the good. Not all DS children can be kept at home, not all speak, not all ever learn to dress themselves.

How many children are in a state institution because someone thought they could handle raising the child....and then found out they couldn't?

" Clue Phone She IS a Woman. DUH"

No kidding Einstein.

One other thing before I leave this thread.

Most of the people who fight for a woman's right to choose are now fighting to revoke that right.

Most of the people who fight against a woman's right to chose are now fighting for that right.

Funny how the tables have turned.

*choose

Before the spelling police come and take me away, ha ha hee hee ho ho

If this world can eliminate small pox, it would be nice if they could also eliminate Down Syndrome.

Not all families are up to taking care of disabled children. This information is important for all parents to know to figure out what they would like to do in the future and gather all the information they require to make informed decisions.

There is plenty of need for assistance with many disabilities. If Down is eliminated, resources would where they are needed. We don't want to get into a situation where the government is trying to make more people dependent on it rather than trying to help them deal with a difficult situation up front and in honestly

I read the article and I still have a question:

Does this test tell you that your baby will DEFINITELY be born with down syndrome or that there is just a chance that it may occur?

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2007-05-09 02:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Commonsense---use some

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-05-09 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, according to you Bob, asking a question before making a judgment shows a lack of common sense?


How stupid of me to ask for clarification.

Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2007-05-09 09:52 PM


I agree. It is stupid to ask such a question in a chat room when you have the internet at your fingertips. Common sense would have told someone who had it, to search there first.

Praise Jesus I am not Married to Buffalo Bob Praise His Name.

Larry

OK. My experience happened over a decade ago. I do not know how much the testing has improved since then. I was given a blood test for Downs. The test came back abnormal. We had to wait before doing the second test. It was hell waiting. The amnio came back normal.
I would not have had an abortion if the 2nd test came back abnormal. I did not even take the test for the last child. It would not have changed my decision to keep him. Both of them are "normal". I would love them just as much either way.

It's not a matter of irresponsibility. It's simply a matter of placing a high value on human life; a value that transcends money.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-09 03:49 PM

So you are in favour of publicly funded health care then? Wow I didn't realize you changed your position, since human life transcends money, we could dump what we spend on the military on free health care for everyone! Think of the lives we could save! Well since human life transcends money and all.

I have personal experience with the "business side" or financial cost of developmental disabilities - another topic that is usually drowned out by those who don't wish to hear the truth.

Developmental Disabilies (DD) including Down's come at all different need levels - a high need person would be severely retarded and have physical disabilities as well - medium=less low need= less.

The monies for DD children school programs and classroom adaptations come right off the top of every school's budget = top priority by LAW. Thus van's for transportation, clothing, special tutors or programs, etc etc are paid from the school budget. Medicaid pays for anything medical or dental (which are normally HUGE costs) and picks up the tab for residential & day-hab programs and anything else once the child reaches age 21 & schools are no longer required to pay for said services.

We are talking hundreds of thousand of dollars per year paid by schools for DD children in the average school district. As the $ comes off the top what is left over is what goes to the "normal" students. This is one of the MAIN REASONS our schools are underfunding programs for regular students. There just isn't enough money left over.

Post age 21 the cost is even higher and is one of the greatest expenses of Medicaid. Day habilitation programs (school for adults) Residential programs, clothing, healthcare, transportation etc are all paid by taxpayers via Medicaid or Depts of Mental Retardation. Now you are talking multi millions of dollars (10 yrs ago one week of 9-3 dayhab for high need individuals was $400 per week.- the person needs to be transported to and fro dayhab from their residential home. Residential homes are staffed 24/7.) Even if a person is in a nursing home they can get transported to a dayhab program. (We don't provide oof-site social programs for normal elderly in nursing homes.)

I also witnessed the human suffering caused by families of these individuals.

Down's Syndrome can be one of the "least" problematic but is still a major disability with vast repercussions not just for the families but also for society as a whole. I have only met one person who is afraid of the numbers of DD people lessening. He is the owner of the FOR profit dayhab - and he is a multi millionaire.

Why don't you just go back to not responding to my posts, Many?

Believe me, I try Lisa.

Your experience is obviously the only one that counts...right???? Your opinion is the only right one.

Not exactly Lisa. See it is you that feels that only your opinion counts and that your opinion should be forced onto others. I am in favor of choice. Your opinion is clearly Anti-Choice. Meaning, if people don't do what you believe, they are wrong.

Again, I believe in CHOICE, you do not. Therefore it is YOU who believes that your opinion is right.

Have the child or do not have the child. It does not affect me. Can you say the same Lisa?

Perhaps your grandmother didn't do everything she could to move on with her life.

She had 3 healthy children after losing her first, was a successful RN and died at age 89. I think she did alright.

We all have had deaths in our families I'm sure. But of course...no one has taken it as hard as your grandmother!!!

Needed to bold that to highlight just how irrational of a person you are.

No one's life has changed from a death more than your grandmother!!

That one too.

Give me a break!!

Believe me I have tried.

Do I feel badly she lost a child? Of course!

Oh, how nice of you.

However:

People choose to wallow in self pity. There are options. If she chose to be that way, that was exactly what she wanted.

What is that old saying about "Assuming" Lisa?

Your grandmother had the opportunity to hold her child, to touch and kiss her child which is something I wasn't able to do. I consider her Blessed. She had her child 10 days longer than I had mine!
Dogs obviously move on, Many. Your grandmother...according to you didn't.

Who isn't as smart as that dog??

The one who assumed way to much Lisa.

I agree. It is stupid to ask such a question in a chat room when you have the internet at your fingertips. Common sense would have told someone who had it, to search there first.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-05-10 03:01 AM | Reply | Flag:


Really? .....and just WHAT was I supposed to search for? Every different type of down syndrome detection test and it reliability numbers? I don't even know what the name of test in the article was.

I recieved the answer from a another poster who had the answer immediately.

It must be nice to be all knowing and have never asked a question on this site.....or have you?

I agree. It is stupid to ask such a question in a chat room when you have the internet at your fingertips. Common sense would have told someone who had it, to search there first.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-05-10 03:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

Loonytarian---Why not reference the part of history you are talking about---or should we start at the beginning.

Why don't you start with what you think a militia is.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-05-10 11:15 AM | Reply

Did you ask for information/clarification in that post?

...AND WITH THE INTERNET AT YOUR FINGERTIPS????

BJ,

No, I don't support a taxpayer funded health care system.

Nice strawman though.

Does Humanity and Morality - - have only ONE viewpoint?

Why don't you start with what you think a militia is.

Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2007-05-10 11:15 AM | Reply

Did you ask for information/clarification in that post?

...AND WITH THE INTERNET AT YOUR FINGERTIPS????

Posted by COMMONSENSE


No--I didn't ask for clarification. I know what a militia is. I asked for a point of reference, and his opinion---neither which can be found on the internet. It seems you lack reading comprehension as well as common sense.

It's not a matter of irresponsibility. It's simply a matter of placing a high value on human life; a value that transcends money.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-09 03:49 PM




No, I don't support a taxpayer funded health care system.

Nice strawman though.

Posted by JeffJ at 2007-05-10 03:

I don't see the strawman here. I see some hypocrisy.

On the one hand Jeff J takes the view that life is so precious that it "transcends money." Then he seems to say that money(taxes) seems more important than peoples lives.