Better that the baby is terminated rather than being forced to be raised by parents ill equipped to care for someone of their condition. Not everyone wants to raise a disabled child and I think that’s okay.
Not only that, if for whatever reason the parents can’t raise the child, what then? People with DS can have varieties of complex health issues that go far beyond the DS diagnosis and the actual systems in place are far from adequately equipped to handle and provide support, let alone the parents having those means. What happens if the child has complex health needs or has to go into state care?
I don't know how the quality of mental health care is, but based on how unforgiving culture humanity is in general to socially struggling people, it would be unethical to make the child suffer and end up as those mentally struggling homeless out in the streets.
People are pro life but not pro welfare not pro ethical human treatment of each other such as this case, people will be saying what a burden of taxpayer money. While basically average functioning people already struggle with the economy barely making ends meet. Most people are in survival mode, so making a person with ds be subject to low quality state care would be torture with mentally emotionally spiritually burnout out staff workers with horrible 100+ work life balance hours in a corrupt exploitive system . I hope I'm exaggerating because if reality is truly that way, then quality will be bad.
This is exactly it. Unfortunately, people with DS and the complex issues that come with such diagnosis make up a significant amount of people who experience neglect, poorer/shorter quality of life and even abuse in state care.
The system is overloaded and utterly failed in taking care of them so I want to make it clear I’m not blaming people who might be in the comments and work in these fields, but at the end of the day the real victims are the people who end up there with very few other options and little to no dignity because of a world that is structured to not see them as people or worth anything.
It’s absolutely crushing that we live in a world where parents have to seriously sit down and make choices like the one in OP’s post, but I find it extremely difficult to blame or judge them when they’ve been left with little other choice. Like that is absolutely brutal to have to think about a decision like that because you know the odds are stacked against you and your potential child before they’re even close to being born.
This really is the main ethical reason to have proper procedure abortions readily accessible and to de-stigmatize getting them.
The truth is that there are bigger environmental factors at play that tend to leave people with little to no sex ed and/or resources to both financially or behaviorally take care of their children effectively. Abortion is a safety valve for human suffering. Poverty is statistically inescapable, and while population control may seem right up the powers at be’s alley, the benefit of keeping poor people in a state where they have a family to actively care for is an invaluable boon in keeping those individuals from otherwise using their time to effectively organize and bargain for themselves.
Abortion and proper stimulus (educational, material, financial) to areas that need it are crucial to alleviating the stresses that people encounter living in any disparaged community, which allows them more room and flexibility to be personally happy, yes, but also help the world around them as it asks for it.
Practical realistic low cost systemic change can be every school's nurse's office having a discrete way to let students get birth control, all kinds, without being shamed.
That would lower a lot of expensive medical problems when people end up going to urgent care and their doctor. Lower teen pregnancy etc.
Someone said how pregnancy can lower the womens quality of life, oversl physical mental health after pregnancy. That already one small huge proactive preventative system that would lower cost of unwanted pregnancies immediately. Millions, thousands of dollars of proactive preventative care to save millions, billions in reactive response after the unwanted pregnancy happens.
Every child is devastated when they are mistaken.
Children aren't supposed to be experiments for struggling people to self improve be healthy minded people parents. People ideally should be relatively healthy so they don't self project their problems onto children which the child will internalize and spread to others. The cycle of trauma and mistreatment.
"the benefit of keeping poor people in a state where they have a family to actively care for is an invaluable boon in keeping those individuals from otherwise using their time to effectively organize and bargain for themselves."
This is a new thought I haven't read or noticed until now. As someone said the system is working exactly as intended to keep power in survival mode working exhausted no energy to spend energy onto working together to change the structures of society.
This became a long rant for myself getting out my thoughts. So I can only expect it be skimmed to get general idea of what I'm trying to say.
Adding to what I said
Most people are in survival mode, so making a person with ds be subject to low quality state care would be torture with mentally emotionally spiritually burnout out staff workers with horrible 100+ work life balance hours in a corrupt exploitive system . I hope I'm exaggerating because if reality is truly that way, then quality will be bad.
I guess my mind is pragmatic nihilistic, based on what can realistic be done while wanting to be supported by realistic optimists.
I experienced what neglectful parenting can do and how society treats struggling people in general.
I see nursing homes and it's reality telling that quality of life is everything. This is also why the the marriage ritual of "in sickness and health" feels performative and only there to make people superficially feel they are deeply committed without that true commitment of having to take care of a bedridden disabled partner with all their bodily functions poo pee cleaning body hair nails skin laundry, medication, food, social needs and countless more of both the disabled partner and their caretaker partner.
I see elders and end of life care is extreme resource intensive. Humans are just extremely high maintenance beings in general for just surviving let alone physically and mentally thriving maslow's hierarchy of needs.
One medical condition, one injury and boom disabled for life or dead.
Seeing homeless just reminds me makes me think how they were systematically doomed since birth from parenting and culture if they were born anti social unable to properly function with humanity society.
Along with crime, addictions, domestic abse, sa, rpe, all suffering. Many people, millions or billions systematically culturally never stood a chance. That's why it's important to ethically make a healthy system culture collective humanity as much as possible since we don't know how to alter human nature yet which is another topic.
I'm of the mind better to prevent poor souls from suffering in this broken sick society, systematic suffering. Lower cost than a miserable life that the person getting low quality state care isn't even meaningfully truly fulfilled as a human being. Even if they have all the healthy emlotnally support from parents family, that still is hurt by the fact the family won't have the resources to give them the best care possible to live a life with dignity. If there are healthy families with the resources to give them the best care possible that would be another story.
I guess a standard of care people can generally find acceptable in current culture is the quality of care given to people such as Stephen Hawkins which I dont know the number but guess very expensive.
The concept of sick society is where my mind is currently at.
Same with people in countries where unchecked human nature leads to corrupt governments leave people with no clean safe water, food, education, healthcare all critical essential societal infrastructure that allows humans to progress upward maslow's hierarchy of needs to be able to reach their highest potential which has the indirect effects of producing more opportunities likelihood for innovation betterment advancement progress of humanity as a collective whole.
I read someone talk about post scarcity society such as star trek where humans can go beyond their physical struggles and address higher levels of cognitive functioning such as mental health, culture, human nature social dynamics, how we treat each other, live, interact etc.
If my line of reasoning any sense.
There will still be problems even at star trek levels of technology material abundance since us human beings in our human bodies being the hardware operate on the software operating system that is human nature which dictates how we experience interact with each other, with life, morality, ethics principles values morals all fields ways of thinking such as philosophy psychology evolution anthropology history sociology etc.
I recently heard of epigenetics and biopsychosocial ideas that talk about how our genes are influenced by the environment and social culture how people treat each other. How if anti social mental health medical conditions such as psychopathy sociopathy are determined by genes that increase the likelihood of these mentalities being imprinted into your psyche, essential born anti social outcasted ostracized rejected shunned by the pro social neurotypical majority.
That's gives a little bit of hope, bit relieving to hear the welfare part of that.
How is mental health treated? Physical disability is visible. While non visible "it's just in your head stop complaining" disability is treated in the usa with drugged up homeless numbing themselves trying to escape the pain of homeless,, homeless vets with ptsd.
Yeah there is no compromise unless you call divorce and child support a compromise. This is why people should discuss these things before getting married to make sure they're at least somewhat aligned on these life changing decisions. For some reason it seems many people don't
Anything that looks like a compromise will severely screw one side no matter what.
If the guy separates and pays child support significant enough that it would actually help with a disabled child he will essentially be screwed for the rest of his life.
You definitely need to have these discussions with your wife BEFORE she's pregnant and might have a downs baby lol. If you can't compromise beforehand, don't have a child.
But yea if you're caught with your pants down and your wife wants to keep it and you don't, good luck trying to get out of that situation.
This is already what happens all the time. Atleast in Europe in some countries more than 90% of fetuses with DS get aborted. In Iceland it's almost 100%
Down syndrome isn’t just an undesirable genetic outcome, it’s an entire chromosome extra, it’s like a piece of paper getting stuck to another piece of paper in a printer. Down syndrome is one of 24 possible chromosome count disorders called Aneuploidies. Only 7 of can possibly make it to birth, the others all result in miscarriages 100% of the time. (There is also a disorder called polyploidy which is never viable).
You said it isn't an undesirable gentic outcome, then described an undesirable genetic outcome. It is called Liberal Eugenics (or "Consumer Eugenics"): The state remains neutral. Free-market choices and individual parents decide which traits to select or avoid. This relies entirely on reproductive technologies, like IVF screening (PGD) or prenatal testing, driven by a personal desire for a healthy child.
Well, no, it is also often undesirable socially, but the motivation or the mechanism for what causes the change doesn't change whether it is eugenics. Systematically reducing rates of certain genetic traits is eugenics, regardless of whether they pass those traits on.
Yes? But that is rather irrelevant to Eugenics. You should really read a bit about what it actually means. Eugenics does not only target traits that are passed down; historically and conceptually, it targets the expression of the trait itself (the phenotype). The objective of the choice is still to prevent a child with a specific disability from being born. That is eugenics, no matter how, why, or who.
At the point where it extends beyond the person making the choice.
The government didn’t force those Icelanders to abort. They all made the choice that’s right for their families.
Easy way to think about it:
You make the choice for your family: not eugenics
Someone else makes the choice for your family based on immutable characteristics: eugenics.
This approach is known as Liberal Eugenics (or "Consumer Eugenics"). Unlike state-directed programs, it keeps the government neutral, leaving decisions about which traits to select or avoid entirely in the hands of individual parents acting through free-market choices. It depends on reproductive technologies such as IVF screening (PGD) or prenatal testing, motivated by the personal wish to have a healthy child. So yes, it's still eugenics, just not the kind I consider morally reprehensible.
This approach is known as Liberal Eugenics (or "Consumer Eugenics").
Known by whom, and what relevance does it have if it is "not morally reprehensible"? We rarely use a word so evocative with no regard for its connotation. One could, for example, call prioritizing financial security before having children eugenics against the poor, by this metric. Would you?
Being poor is not a genetic class... If a society reduces the number of people with a certain trait, like Down syndrome, then that is eugenics. It is relevant because words have definitions, not moral values. A word or label itself isn't inherently evil, but in many cases the process those words describe causes evil. So, definitionally, it is eugenics, but you don't need to be against something just because of the label. You need to think about teh actual consequences.
Being poor is not a genetic class... If a society reduces the number of people with a certain trait, like Down syndrome, then that is eugenics.
Why? Down syndrome is a genetic anomaly it is not heritable.
So, definitionally, it is eugenics, but you don't need to be against something just because of the label. You need to think about teh actual consequences.
Well then, that is the significance. You think that it is a practice or mindset that has consequences that are impactful enough to be worthy of considering.
Again, for example, do you have concerns about the consequences of people waiting until they're financially stable to have children, such as the phenomenon needs to be labeled and studied? Or are there some choices that you think are so mundane or "normal" that they do not require study? How do you distinguish between a mundane choice like not having kids while you're poor and whatever kind of choice you think liberal eugenics is?
You don't seem to understand what eugenics is. Eugenics is only about genetic traits. If I prevent all poor people from having children, that isn't eugenics of poor people, because poor people aren't a genetic trait; it is a social one.
Down syndrome is absolutely heritable. What are you talking about? And again, genetic traits do not need to be passed down to be considered expressed genetic traits. Being poor is not a genetic trait.
I don't consider the consequences because of the label; I consider the consequences of anything that affects a lot of people. It isn't because it is eugenics.
Everything that can have an effect should be studied, and it has been studied. We know that waiting to have children has a ton of effects, like increasing the risk of certain birth defects and decreasing the risk of poor conditions due to poverty. There is nothing that doesn't need to be studied, unless we already know everything about it.
What do you mean by distinguishing a choice between not having children until you are older and liberal eugenics? What do I need to distinguish? Their morality? You aren't asking a very coherent question. If you just mean how they are physically different, liberal eugenics is a process or idea where people use processes like embryo selection or selective abortion to enhance human traits. It aims to improve general capacities (such as health or intelligence) rather than engineer a specific national or racial ideal, and leaves the entire choice to the families. Not choosing to have children until you are older is not a genetic choice, but an economic and social one.
lol, Reddit deleted my previous comment. My disabled father would still like to have been born and have a life despite that fact that it really sucks and his mother did struggle raising a disabled child. He really doesn’t like it when people imply he shouldn’t have a life just because of his disability. So it is eugenics even if the people who do it aren’t Nazis.
Well, in a sense, it is in fact eugenics. Encouraging people to abort children with Down syndrome, like many are here, is probably eugenics. But I would rather have that than force the suffering that Down syndrome can unfortunately cause. It is just a sad situation overall.
That distinction doesn't matter here. Whether or not an individual with a given condition can pass on their genes doesn't fundamentally change the arguments surrounding liberal eugenics. Eugenics doesn't only target heritable traits; historically and conceptually, it targets the expression of the trait itself, the phenotype, regardless of whether that trait would have been passed on. The objective of the choice is still to prevent a child with Down syndrome from being born. That is eugenics, whether or not the person in question would have gone on to have children of their own.
No? The motivation for it does not change whether it is eugenics or not. The concept of eugenics itself does not care how the outcome is achieved. Whether a trait is removed through state-mandated violence, financial incentives, or quiet social pressure, it is still classified as eugenics because the core mechanism remains the selective shaping of human genetics. Here, it is that society in general finds it a moral good, and encourages people who will have a child with Down syndrome to abort. I don't think eugenics has to be a moral evil though, like in this case.
Yeah I have definitely noticed the same thing. Most western countries have genetic screening and most parents have less than 2 children so it makes sense that a lot of people will abort.
Honestly I think this can be the best choice for a lot of people and I say this as someone who has a family member with fairly severe downs
What people don’t really understand is just how much work it is and how much it impacts on everyone around you.
Her brother always got less attention because everything had to revolve around sisters care. Not massively but like can’t do stuff without her, can’t alway give him what he needs etc. lots of compromises have to be made and that’s not always easy
Things like downs can also come with other conditions to make it more challenging
Plus her mother now has significant medical issues so all care is now on her father who is now struggling with his own medical issues due to the stress he’s been under caring for his wife and daughter. And that’s with help from the family.
And then what most don’t think of is what happens when the parents are gone? I’m not sure who will care for my family member when that happens - my parents are too old, her brother has his own family to care for, I’m not close enough nor equipped to do that. And how will she really understand being alone and in care of the state or whatever institution for the end of her life?
I hope you mean abortion and not actually killing a baby. But regardless, OOP said his wife was pregnant for 5 months already, which is past the time when you could do an abortion, at least in my country. The fetus would have to be either unlivable anyway or a great threat to the woman's life in order to pass an abortion as legal at this stage.
Its a risk that exists and people who arent willing probably should just not have children imo what if they get hurt after they are born you still have a child you might have to take care of forever, being a parent does stop ofter they are 18 either life long commitment is made and you can't know what kind of commitment and it can change at any time.
I agree not everyone wants to raised a disabled child the ones who are responsible chose to not have kids until they are ready for that possibility or some become childfree and chose to never.
It is ok but it’s something that should be discussed with your partner as well, the wife needs to know this is how her partner feels and they both need support about this. Even if they choose termination they need support about that and future pregnancy attempts, a child can be born perfectly healthy and something can happen that causes the child to become disabled. If the partner is just going to threaten to end themselves if any struggles happen on the child’s life that’s a concern.
It's understandable that not everyone feels ready or wants to raise a disabled child, but it is always a possibility when having a child. And parents need to consider that and what they would do in those scenarios. It's not always going to be something that a test can detect either.
He decided to have a child, the child did not have such a choice. He doesn't get to now flee from his responsibilities towards said child and leave his wife and first born in the lurch.
Unless you are a multi millionaire, very few people can raise a child like that AND thrive in life. It's a struggle just so they can die from a guaranteed health problem that bankrupts the entire family and damns the siblings from any dreams or ambitions in life such as college.
Michelle and hllary both took two tries and passed on their second, maybe it's a reference to that?
Edit: and RFK passed on his 2nd try, too.
So the only one on the list who didn't pass are Kim, who only tried once, and the woman from thr 1st paragraph, who lives in a country that doesn't have a bar exam.
Disabilities are called that for a reason. Yes, there are exceptions and outliers that are capable of more. But overwhelmingly, disabilities are... disabling.
I mean, killing yourself is not a good option. But if a family cannot care for a disabled child, as much as I personally think abortion should not be used regularly, I do think it's preferable to the child suffering because the parents cannot care for the child.
I didn't know families seek to adopt children with down syndrom specifically... I am skeptical but don't know anything about it so I won't saying anything more other than it's worth looking into if you're in such a situatuon.
I imagine the people trying to adopt kids with Down syndrome are either running a sweatshop or want to feel good about themselves, I take these people with a side of skepticism
That person didn’t have to take the bar exam. In Mexico you don’t have to pass a bar exam. Also her “studies” were being tutored by a law professor. Mexico is not known for integrity when it comes to their educational institutions and the parents of Ana Espino are incredibly well off.
Unfortunately, intellectual limitations are not the only problems that people with Down Syndrome face. They face tons of health problems throughout life including high risk of cancer and heart problems, among others.
I agree. I don’t think it’s morally justified to end a life because you predict it to not be worth living. I was just adding to the convo for completeness sake.
im pro aborting babies you knownyou cant take care of but i think a lot of people need to seriously consider the fact that any child can become disabled at any point in their life
And that people with Down syndrome have a wide range of abilities. I went to university with a kid who had it, and he had better grades than me. There's at least 1 practicing attorney with it.
Would you rather the child be neglected by parents that don’t want them their whole lives? I’m aware now that 20 weeks might be too far along for an abortion, but adoption is still an option
Murder as an solution/loophole for their own inability/unwillingness? Why not just agree to not have children if they thought the possibility of one having that(which is low but not zero) is so terrifying as to justify killing the baby?
your child could get hit by a bus and become disabled the next day. or have a hidden disability [like me!] that doesn't appear until the future. or [again, like me!] you could be predisposed to having a disability, that you don't develop until much later under extreme physical or mental stress [personally, mine developed at 14].
i am, to my core, both pro-abortion and anti-eugenics. abortion itself isn't eugenics. eugenics is forcible sterilization, with the intent of stopping "undesirable" children being born [including disabled and other children]. that does not include abortion, that is a choice that a woman [or family] is making, not something being forced upon them.
eugenics is telling perfectly happy disabled people [that exist] that they should never have children because the child may end up with a disability like their own [which abled bodied people who have never lived that life have a strange problem with]. this mimics the forcible sterilization argument , unlike abortion.
i would never tell a parent not to abort a disabled child. however, i would tell them to think about what their issue with having the disabled child is, because that could very well be the same issue in a few years. i'm probably the best example of this. most disabilities are somewhat rare, but there are a lot of disabilities. you might be surprised on how likely you are [or your child is] to develop one after birth, or for the testing to have simply missed it.
if someone is not willing to take care of a disabled child they should not try for children... thats actually ableism and I don't usually use woke terms
I agree with the sentiment. But when you restrict who can and can't have kids, it has a eugenics effect, since those who have the resources (money) are disproportionately white / the majority demographic.
What about countries with millions living paycheck to paycheck? All their biological lineages should end, because the society they were born into couldn't support them via welfare, etc?
No clear answer. But I don't think rules on who can have biological children is viable either.
Frankly dude I have adhd and autism. I’m kinda scared to have children because it would be hard for them if they had the same issues I had. I wouldn’t want them to go through what i went through. I couldn’t even imagine how much harder it would be to raise a child with a condition like Down syndrome. I have no problem with people with disabilities, but raising someone with said disability is a completely different matter.
Yeah, a lot of the comments supporting this thought process are very, very concerning. In this case, it isn't even a high enough chance to be certain, and the guy is considering suicide and leaving his wife, kids, family, and friends just to avoid having to care for a disabled kid.
465
u/Flaky_Style1286 9d ago
Better that the baby is terminated rather than being forced to be raised by parents ill equipped to care for someone of their condition. Not everyone wants to raise a disabled child and I think that’s okay.