Just achieving the definition of alive doesn't grant you power over other human beings. It is not personhood.

Ethics are more complicated than a black and white definition of when a magical boundary has been achieved.

It’s alive as a zygote, so without even looking at the paper I don’t disagree. The person you responded to said “hardly a life” though, so I don’t think they literally mean is it a cell that’s alive.

Aren't you obligated to make sense though? Not just pretend you made a parallel argument?

That's not how subsidization works at all.

Until people like you figure that out, you're going to continue to be sorely disappointed with your political progress, because your "perspective" is not remotely logical.

The context here is that there's evidence crispr CAS-9 can be used to repair damage to the genome by specifically targeting and deleting the extra third chromosome inside a living cell. I don't know why you'd assume I'm talking about abortion.

I actually think it's reasonable to accept terms as they are if their definition has a long history. If eugenics means a system of forced sterilization intended to unfairly prevent certain people from having kids, (and it has for over half a century) that's fine. I can come up with another term to refer to practices such as embryo screening and we can all agree that eugenics was a very bad thing and would be bad if we tried to bring it back in the future. What I object to is then using a very loaded term outside of that original context to smear people that are making very hard choices, like parents trying to conceive a healthy child

If you want to call it an error, or simply a change, I'm happy to make the argument on those terms. Changes in the development process that leave a child disabled for life, but which can be prevented, such as FAS through alcohol abstinence, spina bifida through folic acid intake, and (if this research can be translated into a treatment) Down Syndrome through the targeted removal of the superfluous chromosome, should be prevented. And don't tell me kids with these conditions aren't disabled, because that dog won't hunt.

Is "birth defect" a eugenically-charged word? I've never heard it used in such a manner, just as a matter of fact.

Only a few percent of Down’s syndrome cases result from Robertson translocations and may be inherited.

If the mother carries the translocation, the rate of recurrence isn’t much more than 10%. If it’s the father, it’s significantly less.

Can't agree here. Regarding gypsies it boils down to the culture and rates of stunting, as evidenced by families who broke off the former and prevented the latter.

The way people with trisomia function in society is also a product of our nurturing culture. It's only recently, when such people started living longer lives thanks to advances in medical science, that their intellectual development gained more attention and it was revealed that they can actually be more independent than commonly believed.

That being said it all requires a huge amount of effort and if a person with trisomia has siblings, they're very likely to be deprived of attention. Additionally, if they're a first child, they're the only one due to this. That is what makes it a net negative.

People have an aversion to the word "eugenics" because it's often connected to atrocity propaganda from World War II.

I'm not suggesting that every country should have genetic purity tests and policies on the level of Israel, just that we should understand that policies affect what kinds of people are more likely to be produced.

A 3 month old fetus is not a person and therefore doesn't count under "anyone"

I do feel the same way of my existence being discussed this way. Would anything be different had I not existed? No, besides my brief life experience and interactions I’ve had with other humans not occurring. I wouldn’t have even known I never existed. Is that good or bad? Right or wrong? No, it just is.

Yes, very similar to how in the decades after abortion was legalized nationally in the US, it gradually northern to our current state where it is legal to kill your own children any time before they turn 18.

Oh wait, no, that didn't happen, because in both your and my case it turns out humans are able to distinguish between life that is and life that might be. The "step" you mentioned is only a small one in a philosophical sense, enormous otherwise to the point of not being a concern.

what is your opinion of the state assisting people to survive when their caregivers die? and what of thr caregivers who cannot work, or cannot afford care?

Yes, I do think you’re being hyperbolic. We’re waging a life that doesn’t exist yet against two parents and possible a healthy child that could be.

Accommodating for a human that exists, if suffering, is clearly a moral obligation. Doing so when it’s not a human but a husk still is not, and deciding in favour of the very human parents—who also have a right to happiness—is definitely ethically valid.

In a related discussion, someone argued that keeping up industrial farming is just, because if we stopped doing so all the cattle that wouldn’t been born would be worse off for never being alive, even if their existence was suffering, because suffering is better than not being at all. I firmly believe this is just wrong. Before a being gains consciousness, it’s not a being and doesn’t experience, hence by avoiding their conception we also avoid unnecessary suffering.

> I'm sorry, what? Those with Down's Syndrome are people, with all the emotions and experiences that entails. If they are supported, nurtured and loved then they'll lead correspondingly happy lives.

Heartily agree! My question was a reaction to the last line in the parent comment:

> If a child can't achieve independence and a life of their own, why let all parties suffer through that ordeal?

I’m sorry that I didn’t make that as clear as I could have.

* * *

I’ve seen the negativity on Reddit and, now, here. Some of that is based on historical reality: the standards for medical care and early intervention have dramatically improved outcomes for people with DS even just in my lifetime. It turns out that if you don’t believe a child is capable of, say, reading, then you don’t bother teaching them to read. This becomes a self-fulfilling diagnosis. And not too long ago, many kids with DS had inner ear damage from undetected ear infections, leading to hearing loss and difficulty communicating. As we learn more about what’s possible and what needs monitoring in kids with DS, long-term outcomes get better and better.

This recent (~last 20-40 years) improvement means there’s still a visible cohort of people who didn’t receive that level of care and probably are less independent. But I’d also suggest that there’s sample bias in anecdotes on Reddit. Like with product reviews: the vast majority in the middle don’t bother to post, and negative experiences get more emotional traction than positive ones.

The range of associated medical conditions is long and scary. But no individual gets all, or even many, of those conditions. And a lot of the scariest/most complicated stuff is correctable early post-natal (heart surgeries are common) or end of life (early appearance of dementia is unfortunately still the likely outcome for most people with DS). Medicine continues to make progress, and I think outcomes will continue to dramatically improve.

Because I grew up across the street from a forty-year-old woman with it. She will be dependent on her parents for the rest of her life. Still lives there. They make the best of it, but frankly, their lives pretty much suck (though she seems very happy with hers). They are no longer people but first and foremost caregivers. All parents have a stage of that but it’s temporary.

I’d imagine some downs patients have more or less functionality and independence, but seems pretty much the whole distribution is just too low for them to be independent.

If y’all are happy, it’s not really my place to comment on that. But this is one of the things that makes me nervous about having kids in future.

The issue isn’t that like all kids they come with emotional complications and caregiving. The issue is I saw these neighbors spend literally two decades trapped in Groundhog Day. They never progressed past it. Well into retirement and they were stuck in this. I’m not sure if they’ve passed now or where she is, but if they’re still alive, I’d guess they’re still in Groundhog Day. Same thing forever.

Years ago, my uncle worked in a home with a group of people with these sorts of conditions. Many were downs and needed help but families would or couldn’t provide it. It’s not just needing more attention, you have to change the way you live. Like one day, two other guys were taking them on a trip somewhere. On the way back they stop for gas, one guys filling up, the other runs in and grabs a slurpee. One of the downs guys says he wants a slurpee (he’s not supposed to have them for whatever reason.) no, can’t have that. But he wants a slurpee. Repeat ad infinitum. Winds up they’re a block away driving and this guy tries to jump out of the car to run back and get a slurpee. Uncle explained to slurpee guy later you literally can’t get anything without giving it to everyone. It’s like kindergarten logic. You have to live that way. Every day, forever.