Tried to keep the title neutral. This was based on 2 articles. The first details the overwhelming use of abortion to prevent the births of Down Syndrome babies. Such that in Iceland only a few babies are born with this condition, and almost all of them had normal prenatal testing.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

The second article regards an Ohio bill that would ban abortions of pregnancies that test positive for Down Syndrome.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ohio-senate-may-ban-discriminatory-abortions-against-babies-with-down-syndr

To me the religious perspective is easy. Abortion is wrong, God loves all people regardless of disability, and this is eugenics.

I'm very curious to hear the opinions of non-religious people. I can certainly see that these children and adults are a lot more responsibility both in the home and medically than normal children. And in a nationalized healthcare scenario you could save a lot of money by not dealing with this problem. I just wonder where you draw the line. What do yall think?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Tried to keep the title neutral. This was based on 2 articles. The first details the overwhelming use of abortion to prevent the births of Down Syndrome babies. Such that in Iceland only a few babies are born with this condition, and almost all of them had normal prenatal testing.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

The second article regards an Ohio bill that would ban abortions of pregnancies that test positive for Down Syndrome.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ohio-senate-may-ban-discriminatory-abortions-against-babies-with-down-syndr

To me the religious perspective is easy. Abortion is wrong, God loves all people regardless of disability, and this is eugenics.

I'm very curious to hear the opinions of non-religious people. I can certainly see that these children and adults are a lot more responsibility both in the home and medically than normal children. And in a nationalized healthcare scenario you could save a lot of money by not dealing with this problem. I just wonder where you draw the line. What do yall think?

---

Two sides.

On one the rational "numbers only", knows it makes sense. If you at it objectively, it would cause less financial burden and pain over time. No different than culling a herd of a sickness. Eugenics is a disgusting practice when applied to humans. But it also yields results no matter what people think of it. The Lebensborn Program, though one of the most unethical and evil programs humanity has ever produced, in fact did make children that were abnormally healthy and intelligent. And that was with just a small group of people with way under less than a generation to work with.

The other side of course is the emotional humanity driven one. Which I oppose this wholeheartedly and personally denounce it as evil. Sadly, again, we need just look back less than a hundred years for a prime example in the Action T4 program of Nazi Germany. Their systematic execution of defective children and adults.

All of this covers forceful eugenics which isn't quite the same as abortion obviously. I think it ultimately just boils down to yet another round of do you support abortion or not as this condition is the ultimate factor in your question.

just my coupla cents.


ETA: Sidenote about Action T4. There were in fact more than several Catholic priests and bishops that were complicit in it. (Though most of course stood against it). Which may make this more of a humanity question instead of a religious/ non-religious question.

All that Ohio law will accomplish is a lot more geriatric pregnancy being aborted as the parents will just assume the worst and go straight to getting an abortion rather than risking a pregnancy that is high risk for down's.

Down syndrome is a weird grey area for me. It clearly causes medical problems, limits independence, and causes increased burden on the family or other caregivers. I don't think anyone would prefer their baby to have Down syndrome.

On the other hand, people with Down syndrome can achieve a lot of independence, are very loving, and they can live very happy, fulfilling lives. While they are certainly impaired, I woudn't consider them sub-human.

I definitely don't support abortion to "prevent" it. I also wouldn't support eugenics or culling. But I would probably support a prenatal corrective genetic treatment if one existed.

Eliminatus said:

---

Two sides.

On one the rational "numbers only", knows it makes sense. If you at it objectively, it would cause less financial burden and pain over time. No different than culling a herd of a sickness. Eugenics is a disgusting practice when applied to humans. But it also yields results no matter what people think of it. The Lebensborn Program, though one of the most unethical and evil programs humanity has ever produced, in fact did make children that were abnormally healthy and intelligent. And that was with just a small group of people with way under less than a generation to work with.

The other side of course is the emotional humanity driven one. Which I oppose this wholeheartedly and personally denounce it as evil. Sadly, again, we need just look back less than a hundred years for a prime example in the Action T4 program of Nazi Germany. Their systematic execution of defective children and adults.

---

I generally agree, but I think that the emotional motivation described should not be divorced so easily from the utilitarian motives. In the case of human beings, I don't think the rational objective MUST be moneycentric. A rational and utilitarian response to the OP's question, in my opinion, should consider the affect that aborting 'less desirable' babies would have on people.

I would oppose a general rule for aborting babies with down syndrome on an emotional level. I would also oppose it on a rational level for the same reasons you've touched on above.

Anyway, this isn't really a rebuttal. . . I just don't think the two sides are quite so separate.

This is a really difficult issue with no obvious answer. From a utilitarian perspective, how would you go about even making this decision? We still know very little about the brain and hence are limited in our measuring of pleasure or pain scientifically. That's assuming that the people making these decisions are predisposed to utilitarianism, which I doubt most are. How do we measure the difficulties in the child's and parents' lives versus the their joy? Even if we could measure them, is that what should be guiding our decisions?

My intuition here is that I am uncomfortable with what is happening in Iceland, like that person in the article. Whether the practice is right or wrong, I have no idea.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

If it's OK to abort just because of Down's, why not wait until they're born, then kill them?

From an ethical perspective, it's the same thing.

Perhaps even "better" since the chance of killing a child that actually didn't have Down's is reduced.

This highlights the true evil of abortion. When some subset of humans become "less" human, then killing them becomes much easier to justify.

---

You could apply your last sentence just as easily to the death sentence or to war or various other things. I don't think the issue here is whether people with Down Syndrome are less than human. Clearly they are as human as you or I. The issue is whether or not their lives are worthwhile for them and their families, as callous as that sounds.

The question you have to ask yourself is whether taking human life is ever justified. If it is, then you have to go about drawing the line. There isn't much difference between killing a child with Down Syndrome at birth or with a misguided drone in Afghanistan. In both cases life was taken. It's how you justify it to yourself that matters. If you knew someone was going to suffer his whole life with not a second of anything but agony, is it ever okay to say death is better? Is it ever okay to say that someone deserves death for what he did or will do? If you answer yes, it's a question of degrees of suffering - there is no more absolute

AstroAg17 said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

When some subset of humans become "less" human, then killing them becomes much easier to justify.

---

Correct. A fetus's life, although human, is much less valuable than the life of a more developed human.

And that's how we always justify killing isn't it? Dehumanization. That's how we kill people on life support, fetuses, and to a lesser extent our enemies. In the first two instances, we don't have to actively dehumanize, we simply recognize that they are less human (in the sentience sense, not the species sense).

---

Is an infant less "valuable" than an adult?

Is a Toddler or an adolescent less "valuable" than an adult?

Is a blind adult less "valuable" than a seeing adult?

It is this utilitiarianism that is the problem. A person's "value" based on what they can do for you, or for society. Or based on their "cost" to society.

ALL Human Life is inherently valuable and worthy of protection.

When we start to allow a hierarchy of "value" on human lives, we "progress" to what happened in Las Vegas.

I believe that the acceptance of the devaluation of ANY human life leads ultimately to individuals justifying Mass Murder.

If the unborn are just "chattel" to be killed at will, then why not a crowd full of unknown concert-goers.

I understand that most don't see the link, but it seems clear as day to me.

AstroAg17 said:

---

Ablist? It's better not to have Down syndrome than to have Down syndrome.

You guys have no issue with ablism when y'all bring up the trans-able people. We can all agree in those instances that it's better to have legs than not. But now we can't agree that Down syndrome is bad?

---

Do people without legs deserve to continue living less than people with legs?

AstroAg17 said:

---

There's nothing utilitarian about anything I've said, and if you've gotten that impression then I'm being misunderstood, which is probably my fault. Most of your questions are stupid, and I won't go through and answer them one by one. To address the first one though, I think the point at which humans start to really become worthy of empathy and therefore rights is before birth, so I obviously value the life of infants and regular old adults. That probably answers at least half of your questions.

I'm not sure where you're getting this utilitarianism thing from. I'm not advocating for assessments based on any measure of value. I'm not saying that fetuses with genetic abnormalities should be aborted because they're less valuable. I don't think I've even said anything to that effect, but if I did it was a mistake. Hopefully that addresses the other half.

---

you said:

Quote:

---

Correct. A fetus's life, although human, is much less valuable than the life of a more developed human.

---

Why?

It is all a value judgment. Based on other things said, I made the connection that it is, in fact, a utilitarian argument.

Why is someone else's ability to feel empathy any kind of consideration in whether or not another human is worthy of protection? Would you tell woman who has experienced a mis-carriage that her unborn child is not "worthy of empathy"?

Zygote, Embryo, Fetus, Infant, Toddler, Child, Adolescent, Adult. All are human; all are worthy of protection. The only difference is stage of development and location (for some).

Whether a person has cognitive or physical impairments should make no difference regarding their worthiness of protection.

This isn't just a response to your posts, although they did prompt the line of thought.

AstroAg17 said:

---

I can totally respect that, although I don't agree with the slippery slope description. The crux of the issue is the fact that not everyone agrees with the last few things you said. To actually make progress in a discussion, that's what would have to be discussed. And those ideas are inextricably intertwined with your religion, which is why this problem really has no solution. Abortion is a very interesting topic to me specifically because it's a manifestation of belief in an area that matters to a lot of people.

---

Agree. Especially the baby.

Determining that down syndrome children are less worthy of life is ablist and sick.

It is baffling that this is even a question.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Determining that down syndrome children are less worthy of life is ablist and sick.

It is baffling that this is even a question.

---

Agree.

AstroAg17 said:

---

So our real disagreement here is whether a child is killed. Which is what I originally said. I'd bet that if you believed a child were not killed (meaning you were pro-choice), you would then be in favor of the selective aspect of abortion.

---

No, I think it is because I(and all believers)have the fear of the Lord which is the beginning of all wisdom. It goes deeper than any one issue.

There is a huge difference between saying
"I would cure down syndrome if I could"
and
"I would delete people with down syndrome from existence if I could"