Why is Down Syndrome aborted?

Post Reply New Topic

I have no problem with people aborting fetuses testing positive to disabilities.
It's their choice, and I might make the same choice in that situation.

I'm not religious. I'm an atheist. I'm pro-life because of science - much as we like to pretend life begins at birth, scientifically speaking, birth is kind of an artificial divide. It happens at [url=http://www.translatingtime.net/translate]wildly different developmental stages in different species[url], for example. In terms of brain growth, a newborn wallaby is developmentally equivalent to a human embryo at 10 weeks gestation in terms of brain development. In contrast, a newborn lamb is developmentally equivalent to an 8 month old human baby. I don't see how labeling a living human organism as 'not alive' is scientific in any form.

As for brain activity, embryos are able to move their limbs and have a sense of touch [url=http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-brain-nervous-system/]by 8 weeks gestation[url]. This is well before when prenatal tests are typically performed. And as stated above, a newborn wallaby, who is neurologically equivalent to a 10 week old embryo, is capable of smelling and crawling towards a food source, which indicates that it's conscious. (By the 'awareness of stimuli' definition of consciousness. By the 'self-awareness' definition of consciousness, even 12 month old humans aren't conscious, and only 50% of 18 month olds are.)

I've done plenty of research on fetal brain and nervous system development and actually read real scientific studies concerning the ability of the human fetus to feel pain and its ability to process the feelings at different gestational periods. A reflex reaction, and instinctive reactions to pain without the consciousness to be aware of the pain means nothing.

A computer or robot will respond to various stimuli, such as heat, or light, etc. It's programmed to do so. That does not mean it "feels" anything. It's not conscious.

Whether or not something is alive is irrelevant. I never said anything about a fetus not being alive. Where'd you get that idea? Bacteria are alive. Plants are alive. They have no conscious awareness, yet they react to stimuli. They aren't sentient beings, they are organisms without consciousness, just like a human fetus before the brain has developed enough to form consciousness.

A human being is not a wallaby. Read some studies concerning human fetuses, and when they are actually aware of pain, and possess the ability to "feel" the pain, not react to pain.

A robot can be programmed to move towards a food source by "smelling" for it, like a newborn wallaby. A robot has no conscious awareness, however. So the behavior of a newborn wallaby does not prove that it has consciousness, not does it prove that a ten week human fetus has consciousness.

Self-awareness is not how I would define consciousness. Only awareness. But if you define "reacting to stimuli" as being aware, then you'd better start calling all of those machines that we use daily "conscious", and start worrying about their feelings, along with plants, bacteria, and all other sorts of things.

A fetus is alive, and I think it is fine for the parents to decide to end that life if they don't want to have that child for any reason.

I can't begin to imagine why. As far as I am concerned, the second you decide to have a child, you accept any and all "problems" (and I am not saying that Down Syndrome is a problem, more the way people are treated because of it) that the child may have. They are still your child and you are still responsible for them.

That said, I can understand why some people may not want to go through with the birth/ raise the child for personal reasons (e.g. having severe mental health problems, not feeling that they can provide materially/ emotionally for the child), but I do think that, even so, it would be a better option to have the child adopted or fostered. Somebody's existence should not be dependent upon the convenience of it for their parents.

Although I am generally pro-choice in principle, I think that the possibility of abortion based on medical conditions (e.g. Down Syndrome or Autism) is horrific and amounts to little more than eugenics.

Down syndrome severely limits a person's quality of life, and a lot of people don't want to raise someone who they know will probably never achieve anything beyond minimum wage employment and maybe independent housing in a group home.

That said, I am against aborting people with high-functioning autism, as we would lose a lot of great artists, scientists, mathematicians, and engineers that way.

So basically people with certain disabilities are worth less than others?

Yes, basically. I don't think you would disagree that the life of the president of the United States is worth more than that of a homeless person. Why, then, would you say it's necessarily untrue that aspies are more valuable then people with Down syndrome?

You can't really do it like that. What makes an Aspie living at home and working at McDonalds more valuable than a person with Down Syndrome doing the same thing? Anyway, it's completely unfair to determine worth and how much a person deserves to live by how much they "contribute".

I feel that every life is worth living and that any type of abortion of any type is murder because a fetus is a living thing. It's up to God who's to live and die. It's not up to the parents and doctors. I see a great number of people with Down Syndrome who hold down jobs in my community. They may be minimum wage jobs, but they're making a contribution in today's society. I feel that aborting a baby for any reason is wrong and that goes for babies with disabilities. I know a young woman who has Down Syndrome. She's bright, funny and she's happy to be alive. We're no longer living in the 1930s.

The lives of future autistics could be in the same bloody boat 30 years from now, if Autism Speaks get their way.

The thing is, an aspie actually has a chance of doing something more meaningful than McDonald's. Someone with Down syndrome doesn't (well, I guess they could get a job playing someone with Down syndrome in a movie). For the record, I'm not saying we should abort all fetuses that show signs of Down syndrome. I'm just saying I don't have a problem with aborting fetuses for that reason.

Because humans with Down's Syndrome are energy vampires.

Someone with Down syndrome could make a difference in the area of disability rights. Plus, they enrich the lives of their loved ones. Like I said, I think it's very wrong to judge someone's worth by things like intelligence.

Way to stereotype an already-underprivileged group of people.

Sure, people with Down syndrome have some value, but it's very limited. Any human being will enrich the lives of their loved ones; that's not really an argument against aborting a certain type of fetus. Someone with Down syndrome will almost certainly enrich their loved ones' lives less than someone with Asperger's syndrome, or a neurotypical. Your argument was that aspies are not more valuable than people with Down syndrome, and the statement that they have some value (albeit very little) doesn't really support that contention.

All human beings have equal value, just from the fact they exist.