Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  puzzlelady 1 month, 1 week ago
    A woman's informed choice to abort a defective fetus is her right, and hers only. Forcing her into a life of servitude to a handicapped child would be disgusting and obscene, even immoral, and a relic of the religious notion that the pleasure of sex deserves punishment. Forcing her to abort is equally immoral.

    People who wish to take care of the "sweetest" defective children, either their own or adopted, should not be stopped. Down Syndrome is not hereditary, not a genetic misprint in the DNA, only a chance occurrence that affects reportedly 1 in every 1000 children. Iceland is not monstrous but enlightened to give women the knowledge and freedom to decide about their own lives. Remember, it's not mandatory to abort, nor mandatory to go full-term. Isn't that what individual rights and freedom mean?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 1 month, 1 week ago
    Why is this such a surprise? My wife and I were warned about the issue of Downs syndrome, back in 1986, with her first pregnancy. Even then, we were being given abortion as a possible alternative.

    There's nothing new in this article.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by NealS 1 month, 1 week ago
      I have a "Special Needs" daughter, confirmed immediately at birth, a developmental disorder (learning delayed). While attending two different unit reunions, both times we discovered that just about about half of our comrades have similar offspring and even grandchildren with similar (not specifically defined) disabilities. The only thing we from all over the US have in common is the males Vietnam service and we were all artillerymen from the same locations of battle. Of course the government still denies any correlation to Dioxin (Agent Orange). She is now 36, lives at home with us as a family member. She has specific duties, responsibilities around the house, never has to be reminded, and has the most wonderful disposition of any human being I have ever known. Abortion was also an option for us, but we would have never known the joy we would have missed had we given it a second thought.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 1 month, 1 week ago
    Eventually, you'll see this done with children who have autism. Difference is that children don't get autism until well after they're born. You get the idea, don't you?...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 month, 1 week ago
    It can't be eliminated by killing everyone! How stupid can they get...wait...I take that back...stupid grows when stupid doesn't know.

    What ever happened to finding out Why this happens...is it incompatible RH factors, incompatible heritages?...is there something we can do besides doing even more harm? Education maybe? duh!

    As far as I am concerned and have observed, down syndrome kids have the ability to produce and create more value than the average government worker!..
    Hows that for telling it like it IS!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month, 1 week ago
      Normally, genes come in pairs. Down's Syndrome is also known as Trisomy 21 because in someone with that condition there is a third gene present which manifests with the distinctive physical features and mental handicap. Scientists have found that the risk of Trisomy 21 increases especially in pregnancies of women over 40, but though it emanates genetically, it is not passed genetically (mostly because Trisomy 21 commonly causes sterility). Trisomy 21 has been associated with significantly shortened lifespan (many die before age 40), but many are now questioning this because most affected by it were institutionalized. Psychologists now theorize that human affection has a dramatic effect on lifespan - largely in part due to observation of those with Down's Syndrome.

      I have an uncle (13 years older than me) who has Down's Syndrome. He has held a job as a stocking clerk in the same grocery store for more than 30 years - even despite the store changing ownership. Those affected with Down's Syndrome are probably not going to be winning Nobel Prizes and they do require supervision their entire lives, but the notion that they should be summarily executed in this fashion is symptom of grave moral deficiencies in the Icelandic culture and laws.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jlc 1 month ago
        I pointed you up for the first paragraph but then wanted to take it back for the last sentence: I do not equate abortion with execution. If someone wants to go ahead and raise a Down Syndrome child, that is fine, but they should not be forced to do so. That Icelandic moms have made virtually 100% decision to not have trisomy 21 children seems logical to me.

        Jan
        (I put the points back on because I agreed with 3/4 of your post.)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month ago
          A movie that I have watched over and over again is "Gattica". The question raised is how far do we as a society want to allow genetics to prejudicially determine a person's contributions to society. If we allow abortions for Trisomy 21, what else? Autism? How about Asberger's? To me it is a slippery slope argument of the most grave moral question: the question of life itself.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jlc 1 month ago
            My answer is: Yes. Everything.

            We should allow early-stage abortions if the genome of the fetus has the wrong hair color or lacks musical talent or did not inherit the wings I added to my genome last year. I regard this as a good thing, not a bad thing.

            You are correct: The starting place on this slippery slope, however, is simply to eliminate negative characteristics. Do you care if your child has Down's Syndrome? No? Well then, go ahead and have a beautiful and sweet Down's Syndrome child. Do you care if your child has spina bifida? Trisomy 18? If not, then go ahead and have a child who may be born crippled or severely mentally handicapped.

            Reproductive choices, like other aspects of the individual, do not (should not) default to the decision of the crowd. If I am 100% white, but I want my child to be 100% African black, and we can introduce those genes into the fetus, then that is my choice - someone else should not be able to make me do this...or prevent it.

            So, you ask, where does society's parameters come into play? Right now, society is almost entirely in agreement that a late-term termination of pregnancy, when the fetus would be able to live independently, is not allowed. I agree with that, as I think it is a reasonable rule-of-thumb; I think that 90% of our current society would agree on that. Anything else is the decision of the parents.

            Gattica is an entirely different question, as it deals with what you do with the knowledge of someone's statistical genetic nature without regard for their actual accomplishment. Gattica is comparable to pre-judicially not allowing women to take math because women are statistically less math adept than men. This invalidates the actuality of the individual: the most talented person with math that I have ever met is a woman.

            Jan
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  blarman 1 month ago
              "You are correct: The starting place on this slippery slope, however, is simply to eliminate negative characteristics."

              Blacks are genetically more inclined to sickle-cell anemia and several other diseases. Your logic morally justifies their genocide because these are negative characteristics. Do you really want to go there? That is the result of both acknowledging and accepting a slippery slope moral proposition. What is more, once one is on the slope, one can't even see the precarious nature of one's own position. It's like a snowboarding course - it just goes downhill once you jump on.

              "So, you ask, where does society's parameters come into play?"

              On the contrary, I don't ask society anything. I like the line from "Men in Black": "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."

              Society is full of morons: listening to them for guidance on morality is subjecting one's self to their group stupidity and mob mentality. Remember there are a lot of people who think government should run healthcare, control industry, and restrict firearm ownership. Mob rule got Socrates executed and scorned the heliocentric model of the solar system.

              Reality doesn't care how many deluded people there are out there. Appealing to the masses as a debate tactic loses you points in my book. Reality is completely and unalterably indifferent to the foibles and intellectual failure of man.

              "Gattica is an entirely different question, as it deals with what you do with the knowledge of someone's statistical genetic nature without regard for their actual accomplishment."

              Let's see. Someone is determining someone else's fate (quite literally) based not on anything that person has done but rather on innate characteristics they can not change and a hypothetical future. Hmmmm.... Yup, I guess that's totally different. [/sarcasm]
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by  $  jlc 1 month ago
                One is not eliminating 'blacks': One is eliminating 'sickle cell trait'. As long as the family is no longer living in a malaria-prone area, that is a good decision that will lead to a healthier offspring. Why would you want your child to have sickle cell any more than you would want her to have spina bifida?

                My apologies for trying to put words in your mouth re abortion parameters. Often, the next question in such a discussion is whether allowing early term abortions requires acceptance of later term abortions as well. I was trying 'not to go there' but apparently had the opposite effect.

                Jan
                (Liked your MiB quote.)
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 1 month ago
    There is no mandated care for defective babies, whether physical or mental. In the case of physical problems great strides are being made for those who can afford them. From a strictly scientific approach, aborting defective children makes sense. However, for those who believe that all human life is precious it makes no sense at all. This raises many ethical questions from both sides of the argument. Intellectual defectives require hardly any extra effort, all the way up to constant loving care. Physical defectives are the same only perhaps, more obviously so. So, whose responsibility are we dealing with -- the state? The individual,? The family? To date this has become a problem that is being solved to a greater or lesser degree by the families involved. If the government takes over the responsibility, there is little doubt that what is happening in Iceland will be happening here. While considering the problem, one thing there is to make sure of, keep it out of the government's hands..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 1 month ago
    Works for me. Demonstrate financial capability to care for them unassisted and commitment to do so, and you can roll the dice, but then that requirement should hold for all children.

    We have demonstrated we can produce an inordinate number of humans. We have enough. The ones we make don't need to start off defective.

    Additional population is pretty clearly an example of involuntary servitude by the present population, and subject to some market cost.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 1 month ago
    This sounds like a case for perfecting the human race, but that was tried under the National Socialists in Germany. Defects were weeded out even down to ethnic and race undesirables. But we live in the age self based on convenience: convenience foods, convenient transportation, low maintenance housing, and convenient children. Nothing should interfere with ones own convenience.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 1 month, 1 week ago
    It is interesting that the collectivists think they know when someone's life is worth living. What if the individual doesn't understand or agree with the collectivists? Should they be allowed to keep their life? I know a lady who was once told that her son (who wasn't born yet) had severe mental abnormalities and he should be aborted. She considered it because she did not want him to suffer. When he was born he was normal. Whoops, our mistake.
    I was traveling once and while waiting at the Orange County airport a woman who was a nurse sat down next to me, we exchanged pleasantries and she began talking about the importance of a woman's right to choose and went on to say that after children were born their brains are still forming and being connected so they really aren't sentient until they are 5 years old so the right to terminate a life should extend to that age not just be limited to unborn children because what if the child wasn't turning out right and you could foresee some problems? I got up and moved away from her. The right to control or dispense of another life always comes from the collectivists. I am certain my life would be terminated at this point (I am 68) because I would be viewed as a menace to society and happiness because of my Objectivist views and desire to be able to live by those precepts.
    Children are an incredible responsibility. If you don't want that responsibility get fixed. Don't make the child pay the price of a life because it is inconvenient for you.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Abaco 1 month, 1 week ago
    Those who can make you believe fallacies can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

    Humanity just refuses to stop shoving itself down the toilet hole...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
    How do Herman Cain's views have anything to do with Objectivism? Ayn Rand didn't consider abortion to be murder, that's more of a core belief of "social conservatives" like Cain who are perfectly okay with an invasive government forbidding women from voluntarily choosing to terminate their pregnancies.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 1 week ago
    Wait till they start eliminating all the other "Untermenchen" Just like Margret Sanger envisioned it. I mean we don't want all those pesky Downs Syndrome people...next the people with less than 60 IQ, next the criminal types...I'm sure we will develop a test for that...then people with Congenital Defects, the Jews, the Mexicans the drunken Irish, people who have brown eyes then the people with less than 80 IQ, Then the Slavs, Then people with club feet , Sickle Cell, then the people with less than 100 IQ, then the Negroes, Red headed people.....yeh...that's the ticket!,
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 month, 1 week ago
      You do not deserve a 0. Me dino gets your sarcasm. +1 at least for teaching me~
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterme...
      This from an old dino who watched Holocaust on TV during the 70s, saw Schindler's List and a lot of movies like that plus History Chanel stuff on the subject.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month, 1 week ago
        I actually thought about pointing out that this was a "A Modest Proposal" However.......considering the average intellectual requirement in order for someone to be on an objectivist website, I decided it was unnecessary and could be insulting to the reader.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  allosaur 1 month, 1 week ago
          Dang, now I see a-1. Gave you a +1 here.
          That being all I can do.
          Sheesh! Christian me is not even considered a full-fledged objectivist here in the Gulch.
          "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. Me old dino read that a long time ago.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      Exactly, if they were attempting to adjust genetic markers (I'm learning more about this every semester as my daughter completes her forensic studies) to remove the trait I would support this, but choosing to eliminate entirely on this basis, while the parents choice, is more than a little disturbing to me. I've encountered some folks with Downs over the years and never thought them mentally or physically deficient. As you point out, who is next? Whats the acceptable justification?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by evlwhtguy 1 month ago
        "Whats the acceptable justification?"

        In China.....that bastion of godless communism, they select for sex so much that they have an oversupply of males! Sometimes they perform "Retroactive abortions" on girls...it is called "Bathing the baby". That is the baby takes a bath and sadly drowns.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month, 1 week ago
    I remember worrying that these tests would show a possible genetic condition like this. Fortunately they didn't, and our kids were born very healthy. I hope what someone said most people do would not have affected our decision.

    When I read the second half of the article, I do not think CBS is cheering it. It shows a picture of a healthy child with Down's near a quote from her mother asking "What kind of society do you want to live in?"

    I am in Iceland next week for the first time. I think of them as a kind people who like mythology about elves and speak a language similar to a precursor of English from a 1000 years ago. This thing about Down's is an interesting, sad fact to learn.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 month ago
    I think it might make a difference whether brain waves were already present or not.
    Ayn Rand was in favor of a woman's right to have an abortion. However, she said, "One may
    quarrel about the later [or" latter", I don't remember which she said] stages of a pregnan-
    cy, but the essential issue concerns only the first
    three months."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month, 1 week ago
    I just finished making Grilled Cheese sandwich's for Felix a boy with downs who is now 5. My wife has been his nanny since he was 1 1/2. He is a happy loving boy. His parents and family love him and the neighbors and locals treat him like a celebrity, he is a joy to be around. He has
    a ton of potential. His parents would say he is the best thing in their lives.

    The "encouragement" to terminate a pregnancy
    because of Downs Syndrome or just encouragement to abort is sad.

    Olafsdottir responded, "We don't look at abortion as a murder. We look at it as a thing that we ended. We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication... preventing suffering for the child and for the family. And I think that is more right than seeing it as a murder -- that's so black and white. Life isn't black and white. Life is grey."

    Life is black and white not grey! You are either dead or alive.

    "We ended a possible life that may have had a huge complication... preventing suffering for the child and for the family"

    What a crock of $H1T, with that philosophy all humans should be aborted due to possible suffering and complications.

    I am not anti-abortion.
    I am an advocate for using your brain.
    If you are smart enough to know where the man puts his thing in you, you should be smart enough to use birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by slfisher 1 month, 1 week ago
      Wow, another one who believes that pregnancy is only the responsibility of the woman. Interesting.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month ago
        I said nothing of the only responsibility of the woman.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by slfisher 1 month ago
          "If you are smart enough to know where the man puts his thing in you, you should be smart enough to use birth control to prevent an unwanted pregnancy."

          Sounds to me like you're putting the onus on the woman.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Dobrien 1 month ago
            Not my intention to put "the onus on the woman"
            I believe in preventing rather than reacting if possible. Responsibility for your actions , male or
            Female is equal. I phrased it as I did because a man can't have an abortion.
            I would not restrict a woman from aborting. I also don't like encouragement or pressure to abort from PP services. I will admit to loving life and
            the possibilities that go with it.
            That we as a society should eliminate downs fetuses is not the society that I want to be part of.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  DrZarkov99 1 month, 1 week ago
    Stupid and ignorant. The problem is in the genes of the parents, so killing the offspring isn't a solution. Thankfully, genetic engineering is progressing, and fixing genetic disorders at the early fetal stage is going to be possible in the near future. The question is whether or not testing for the most common problems will be affordable. I would be amenable to helping parents with the cost of fixing the problem, since the result will be reduced medical expenses.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by slfisher 1 month, 1 week ago
      Well, it is a solution in the sense that the woman won't have to raise that particular child. I agree it doesn't guarantee that future fetuses might not have the same condition.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  tohar1 1 month, 1 week ago
    I thought it amazing that Patricia Heaton (The Middle, Everybody Loves Raymond) caught so much flack for pointing out this very fact. "Shoot the messenger, and don't listen to the message!!"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month, 1 week ago
    The problem is that although its a woman's choice, what if she wants a blue eyed baby and this one is brown eyed? Leaves open room for a lot of stupidity.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CBJ 1 month, 1 week ago
      Why would this "stupid" woman's choice be a problem? Do you think it would be better for her to bring up a child she doesn't want, because you don't agree with her child-selection criteria?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 1 month ago
        It should be the woman's choice. I do think if she wanted a human baby that she would want more than blue eyes. It will grow up to be a human life after all, and one would think that an intelligent women would want THAT, and not an eye color.

        I would not interfere with her ability to choose to abort, but I wouldnt really think much of her if she did it for the eye color.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo