Down syndrome has significant developmental effects beyond mental impairment, lifespans are considerably shorter and while that's improving that doesn't take into account quality of life, medical complications are almost inevitable.

▲

cogman10 2 days ago | parent [-]

The mental impairment shouldn't be understated. We are talking about people that will perpetually need care and supervision.

Don't get me wrong, I think it'd be great if society could give these people more than poverty after their parents die, but as it stands, unless that person was born into wealth they are looking at misery when the state becomes their caretakers.

I have a child with a server mental disability, I love them pieces, but frankly what happens to them after I'm gone is one of my biggest concerns.

That's the hard reality I wish people hand wringing about the ethics of avoiding down syndrome would confront. It's one thing to call them a blessing, but are you going to push and advocate for government spending so these blessings don't end up in a hellhole when they are no longer cute children?

▲

vtbassmatt 2 days ago | parent [-]

This starts from an incorrect premise — that everyone with Down syndrome “will perpetually need care and supervision” — and then heads downhill. “Misery” and “ends up in a hellhole” are choices society has often made in the past for people with intellectual disabilities, but they aren’t a law of physics or fundamental moral law.

What are the ethics (and societal obligation) of supporting someone who’s had a severe stroke? Or how about a traumatic brain injury from a car accident? Oxygen deprivation from near drowning? If these are different from a congenital condition like DS, why?

	▲	cogman10 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The same, which is why I support universal healthcare and expanding healthcare to include nursing support/housing for the disabled. If someone gets cancer, then yeah they should be covered such that they aren't made homeless because of their disease. If someone has a stroke that leaves them unable to work, again a social safety net that keeps them from being homeless should be in place. The ethics are pretty simple. It's reasonable for a good society to support those in need through force of taxation. Just like it's good for a society to keep the water clean through force of taxation and regulation. Everyone benefits or has the potential to benefit from such a universal system that protects them from circumstances outside their control.