h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Oh, how uncharmingly judgemental . . . you know these women? you have lived their lives? you understand how they feel and why they have made certain difficult choices in their lives?

Sorry, but guess what? I am personally pro-life. In a much truer sense than those fanatical anti-abortionists who also use that term to describe themselves.

And guess what else? I also know that I have no bl**dy right to ever tell any other person what is right for her in this situation. I've been there, I know how hard it is, and I will not judge.

Well, except to judge the judgemental. As being exactly what they are.


az

typical ridiculousness - hypotheticals are more important than practicalities.

<<"A human foetus might be indistinguishable from any other animal in gross morphological terms, but it has different DNA, therefore it's a different organism".>>

So why is a human special in your opinion?

(I have my own opinion, being that humans have more developed minds and personalities, which obviously doesn't apply to a foetus.)

<>

I'm confident we would have figured that out before the doctor notified us. In any case, since the child would have already been born alive, terminating it would be murder. We would have passed well beyond the point of no return. Our only option would be to raise her to the best of our abilities.

There sure are a lot of hypothetical cases here. Have you thought, really thought, about how it would be to raise a child who will be a child and require constant care and guarding for the rest of their lives? And not just by you, but your other kids, when you're gone. I'll warn you now, this is a long post.

I know two Down's kids, one the daughter of a college friend, the other my best friend's niece. The niece is very sweet, friendly, but basically not capable of self-sufficiency. Mentally, she is about 8-10 at the age of 18. She was offered a place in a group home arrangement, where she would live with others her own age, supervised and trained to work to support herself. Her parents turned this down, partly (I believe) because they felt that they should care for her. She spends her days bored now that she's out of school. Lately, she has to be watched fairly closely because she has taken to just quietly leaving the house, and walking over to the corner store or the park or to visit neighbors. She's physically a young woman, and has no fear of people, beyond "strangers". She is not able to distinguish between people she is properly introduced to and friendly random strangers -- when asked, she just says that she knows strangers are "mean" people. Her whole life will be one of constant care and worry by her family, but they are able to cope for now.

The other girl is 20, and maybe age 6-7 mentally and possibly mildly autistic as well. She has an agressive nature, and has attacked her mother several times. She refuses to wear any clothing; she has to be mildly sedated to get her to put on a housedress (and leave it on) so she can be taken to the doctor, or make some other necessary trip. Her father left when he realized how much care she would need. She has a younger brother, whom she attempted to smother when he was an infant, they think because he was crying and it bothered her. Her mother does not want to institutionalize her although it will happen when her mother is gone, I think. I worry for her mother -- the daughter is larger. stronger and heavier than her mother, and is agressive, sometimes violent. The house is kept locked up like Fort Knox, for obvious reasons.

Could you live these families' lives? I think if I were in a position such as Della Apple proposed, and knowing these two families as I do, I could possibly consider ending the pregnancy, even though I think I'd hate myself for the rest of my life.

It's one thing to put up straw puppets and say, "Yeah, I could handle it," but until you've seen people trying to cope, you can't honestly or realistically answer that question. That's the problem with "hypothetical" situations.

SC

<>

what article?

<<I think if I were in a position such as Della Apple proposed, and knowing these two families as I do, I could possibly consider ending the pregnancy, even though I think I'd hate myself for the rest of my life.

It's one thing to put up straw puppets and say, "Yeah, I could handle it," but until you've seen people trying to cope, you can't honestly or realistically answer that question. That's the problem with "hypothetical" situations.<<

What do you mean what I proposed? All I did was put a link to an article about the abortion of among other things, children with Downs Syndrome. Since then, I have pointed out that not all people with Downs can be lumped together as one, because they are as different from each other as 'normal' people are. In answer to someone else's very aggressive question, because of my work with special needs people over *30 years* the sample of people with Downs and various disabilities I have known, is very large - in the hundreds. There are children with autism spectrum disorders in my family. I am opposed to eugenics on principle, and I'd have assumed that most forum people would be too, and I am very surprised to see the amount of support for it.

From Della April (with apologies for getting your name wrong earlier ): << What do you mean what I proposed? All I did was put a link to an article about the abortion of among other things, children with Downs Syndrome. Since then, I have pointed out that not all people with Downs can be lumped together as one, because they are as different from each other as 'normal' people are. >>

I believe I was *not* lumping them all together. The two girls' cases are most similar in the familial impact, not on similarity of the two Downs girls.

<< In answer to someone else's very aggressive question, because of my work with special needs people over *30 years* the sample of people with Downs and various disabilities I have known, is very large - in the hundreds. There are children with autism spectrum disorders in my family. I am opposed to eugenics on principle, and I'd have assumed that most forum people would be too, and I am very surprised to see the amount of support for it.>>

I also don't believe I was supporting "eugenics". I take eugenics to mean selecting for "perfection" or gender. There ain't no such thing, you plants your eggs and you takes your chances. But there are things which would be too hard to bear, for a lot of people. I would have a hard time judging someone who knew their limits.

Also, if all you were doing was posting an article you believed "most forum people" would agree with, what would be the point? You do want us to discuss this, right? So, we're discussing it.

SC

<>


Oops. Will try to find it again . . .


az

<>

Does this come as a surprise to anyone who has met some of your family members?

<>

How many fallacies do we have here all wrapped into one? I count straw man, false dichotomy, slippery slope, and ad hominem. Can anyone spot any more?

Nobody here has said one word in support of eugenics. We haven't spoken of any genetic defects beyond Down's syndrome.

My daughter has a strong chance of inheriting childhood asthma from me. She has an even stronger chance of inheriting endometriosis from her mother. But these are both treatable conditions that should not limit her chances for a long and happy life. There is no way that we would have elected termination if she had tested positive for either, or both.

Misunderstanding, SpaceCadette! I didn't mean *you* were lumping them all together, or that *you* were supporting eugenics!

The people who gather at the Forum tend to be people who pride themselves on being 'liberal' in American terms. By and large, 'liberals' aren't the kind of people I would assume support eugenics. Hence my surprise.

<<<>

Does this come as a surprise to anyone who has met some of your family members?>>

Which you have never done (Met anyone in my family.) Your half-witted remark is an insult to anyone with such disorders, and don't pretend to have meant otherwise - not everyone is as naive as you wish they were.

<> (Della)

You said both things in reply to her post, Della. And since she is also a 'Forum person' how is she exempt from being insulted by your fabricated claim that people here support eugenics?


<> (SC)

No, she doesn't want to discuss it, SC. But she does want us to disagree with her so she can feel self-righteously persecuted and hence justified in annoying people with her insults and invented 'facts'. Nuthin new there - it's called the Della Technique™.


az

Re eugenics....

Although it's not eugenics for a woman to decide to abort a foetus with Downs Syndrome, it's certainly true that the overall effect of a systematic policy of testing for Downs syndrome may have the long term consequence of reducing the number of people alive who have Downs syndrome. I think this would only be a problem if it meant that life for those who *did* have Downs syndrome and their families suffered as a result of reduced provision, public understanding etc, but there's no automatic reason to think that that's the case, and this doesn't seem to be a very strong argument for not testing.

The problem with a word like 'eugenics' is that some dreadful things have been done in the name of eugenics, but it's not enough to call something "eugenics" to win the argument. It seems to be that if we could eliminate certain very nasty genetic conditions which leave no quality of life at all, then that would not in itself be wrong. I know that there are some conditions or diseases that mean a very short life full of pain for newborn babies, and it seems to me that the world would be a better place if no more babies were born with those kinds of conditions. On at least one definition of eugenics, this would count, yet I think few people would oppose this.

Blatherskite

There is also the option of rejecting the child who would then be raised in a care home or put up for adoption. It may not be a course of action you personally would consider, but it is a possibility.

I wonder if ante-natal testing & termination were not available, if there would be more disabled children in care.

Della 1st claims that she's not for or against aborting a foetus that tests positive for downs syndrome, while in the same breath accusing everyone on the forum for being pro-eugenics (a word with nasty historical conotations) b/c they said they would.

It seems the obvious question is where DO you stand Della? You said you hadn't taken a stance, while in the same breath condemning those who had. But rather than leave it ambiguous, what would you do?

<>

That could happen, although I agree it's unlikely.

<< It seems to be that if we could eliminate certain very nasty genetic conditions which leave no quality of life at all, then that would not in itself be wrong. I know that there are some conditions or diseases that mean a very short life full of pain for newborn babies, and it seems to me that the world would be a better place if no more babies were born with those kinds of conditions. On at least one definition of eugenics, this would count, yet I think few people would oppose this.>>

The problem with eugenics, comes when it is *enforced*, as it has been in the past - we all know of the forced sterilisation of the 'unfit' which took place in the USA before it ever did in Nazi Germany, and as recently as the 1960s.. (I was talking to a woman on another board whose *aunt* was a victim of such policies - she sued and was recently paid a large amount of compensation, which did help inasmuch as it recognised her rights which had been taken away, but that was all it did.)

Imposed sterilisation or eugenic abortion will *never* get rid of all disability. So long as that is recognised, and so long as any steps taken are wholly voluntary, that isn't what I understand by the term eugenics.

Arnie, old man, you're stirring sh*te as usual, and I won't dignify you with an answer. azahar decided to claim I'd said everybody was pro-eugenics. I advise you to read what I wrote, not what az claimed I wrote, and you'd know.

The initial point I was trying to make, agreeing with Apollyon, was that Downs Syndrome is not a sufficient reason to abort a child - in fact, I am opposed to abortion on eugenics grounds period. Who gives you (generic you, BTW, not directed at anyone here) the right to judge which lives are fit to survive?

Not many have or should have the right to decide which "lives" are fit to survive.

But an early foetus isn't a human life.

So your sweeping declaration doesn't apply.

<> (Della)

This is exactly what I said in post 53 - notice I did not use the words 'everybody' or 'pro-eugenics'.

<> (me)



<> (Della)

In fact, you are opposed to abortion full stop. According to you there is never sufficient reason to abort, well, a foetus (it is not a child until it's born). One has to wonder why you started this thread if you were only going to twist the subject from a very difficult decision some parents face to people who sympathise with them being 'pro-eugenics'.

<> (Della)

Oh, so if it isn't *enforced* then it's okay?


az