▲ | cogman10 2 days ago | |||||||
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? | ||||||||
|