Originally posted by NordlysO.K., can you give me some circumstances that aren't unusual where it would be better to be born with Down's syndrome or without your perceptual capacities intact?
Ah, okay. I thought you were deliberately twisting my words, but you only misinterpreted them, which I have to admit isn't really surprising as it was worded rather badly. What I meant when I said "not necessarily" was not that there might be some unusual circumstances under which it would be better to be born with Down's Syndrome or other disabilities, but ...[text shortened]... d be better to be born without Down's syndrome and with your perceptual capacities intact.
Originally posted by ivanhoeMarauder, it is simply unheard of to assume that "anything goes" unless others show you some proposed action or policy to be morally impermissible.
Marauder, it is simply unheard of to assume that "anything goes" unless others show you some proposed action or policy to be morally impermissible.
I was right in my criticism that you basicly take the position that others have to prove that eugenics is impermissible, that it is a pseudo- science or that is has negative societal or personal effects. You ...[text shortened]... so you simply accept and implement the policy. Hooray for the rational liberal the Marauder !
No it's not. That's the idea behind the phrase "free country".
Originally posted by bbarrI didn't say it would be better, I said it might not be worse. Most people with sensory impairments or Down's Syndrome are born into "normal" families and live under "normal" circumstances. If it were clearly better to be born without a disability, one would expect disabled people to generally have a worse quality of life. However, many disabled people report that they experience an excellent quality of life. Also, people with sensory impairments usually develop their other senses more than "normal" people (to a degree which wouldn't be possible for "normal" people because they use parts of the brain which normally are used for the sensory function they lack). This may give them pleasures "normal" people won't be able to imagine, just like blind people won't be able to imagine what pleasures vision can give sighted people. It also gives them a unique perspective. I got some insights from reading texts by or talking to people with sensory impairments which I wouldn't have got any other way. Some disabled people use their special way of perceiving things to create art or to solve problems in a unique way. I believe that diversity generally enriches society.
O.K., can you give me some circumstances that aren't unusual where it would be better to be born with Down's syndrome or without your perceptual capacities intact?
Originally posted by NordlysSure, and it might not be worse to be poor. I'm sure many poor people report that their quality of life is just fine, despite empirical evidence to the contrary. I'm also sure that many people who are poor and who do have manifest fine quality of life do so in virtue of environments that ameliorate the effects of their poverty. Further, I'm sure that many artists and poets and activists for social change were profoundly impacted by their own experiences of poverty, and that this led them to see and feel things differently. But does any of this suggest that it wouldn't be better to try and remedy poverty? No, it doesn't. It doesn't because there are millions of people who have very poor lives by virtue of their poverty, just as there are millions of disabled people that have very poor lives by virtue of their disabilities. Just as in the cases of poverty, those with disabilities like Down's syndrome, blindness, deafness, etc. tend to have lives that are worse by virtue of their disabilities.
I didn't say it would be better, I said it might not be worse. Most people with sensory impairments or Down's Syndrome are born into "normal" families and live under "normal" circumstances. If it were clearly better to be born without a disability, one would expect disabled people to generally have a worse quality of life. However, many disabled people repor ...[text shortened]... e problems in a unique way. I believe that diversity generally enriches society.
Originally posted by NordlysAll other things being equal, do you seriously think any parent would (in foresight) not care either way if their child had Down's Syndrome or not? I would not dispute to any depth the rest of your points, but what you are saying seems rather startling to me.
I didn't say it would be better, I said it might not be worse.
I would agree that sometimes, perhaps even often, the best quality of life occurs to people following some major accident or incident, it gives the individual the opportunity to reassess what is important, and refocus accordingly, but the key here is reassess. It is an adult action to reassess at that kind of level. To suggest that it is better (or to split hairs 'not worse'😉 to be born with Down's syndrome seems rather sad.
Originally posted by NordlysWhy? Are you saying it's better to not have such a condition? What about religious people who think it's God's will if people are born with such conditions? They would probably disagree. Do such people exist? I thought there were some, but all I could find were Jehovah's Witnesses and their rejection of blood transplants.
However, you do have the belief that not having Down's Syndrome or being able to hear is better than having Down's Syndrome or being deaf. This is something many disabled people would not agree with. You may not devalue them as persons, but you devalue their conditions. Also, if you say that you think it would be better if nobody was born with ...[text shortened]... been prevented that he gets the disease in the first place, I would certainly have approved.
What if someone (or xyr parents) believed that it's a case of demonic possession? What if they are like my Mexican relatives and afraid of doctors? What if they believe such conditions are caused by doctors?
Originally posted by snowinscotlandThis may not be entirely comparable, but many parents decide to have a child with Down's Syndrome against the strong advice by doctors to abort the child. Of course in that case the fetus already exists, and you don't have the choice to have a child without Down's Syndrome instead (at least not right away). As I mentioned earlier, there are also parents of deaf children (most of the time deaf parents, but I think there are some hearing parents who make that decision, too) who decide against a cochlear implant which would enable their child to hear (of course the child can still choose later to get one, but they don't work as well if you get them later in life). And I know of autistic parents who hoped their child would be autistic, and were very happy when it was.
All other things being equal, do you seriously think any parent would (in foresight) not care either way if their child had Down's Syndrome or not? I would not dispute to any depth the rest of your points, but what you are saying seems rather startling to me.
I would agree that sometimes, perhaps even often, the best quality of life occurs to people ...[text shortened]... is better (or to split hairs 'not worse'😉 to be born with Down's syndrome seems rather sad.
Originally posted by NordlysI agree that people make decisions regarding their offspring that we may or may not think are correct.
This may not be entirely comparable, but many parents decide to have a child with Down's Syndrome against the strong advice by doctors to abort the child. Of course in that case the fetus already exists, and you don't have the choice to have a child without Down's Syndrome instead (at least not right away). As I mentioned earlier, there are also parents of d ...[text shortened]... f autistic parents who hoped their child would be autistic, and were very happy when it was.
However, I don't think you have answered my question.
'do you seriously think any parent would (in foresight) not care either way if their child had Down's Syndrome or not?'
Originally posted by bbarrIt certainly is true that many disabled people don't have very good lives. But I also believe that in many, if not most cases, this is not a direct result of the disability, but a result of how society deals with disability, which means that it would be possible to give them a better quality of life without taking away their disability (and thus also their unusual abilities, perception and perspective). If people are discriminated against because of their skin colour, do you think it would be a good solution if we could let them be born with a different skin colour? It might make life easier for the person born with a different skin colour, but would it make society better? I believe society gets better by teaching people to embrace diversity, not by eliminating diversity.
Sure, and it might not be worse to be poor. I'm sure many poor people report that their quality of life is just fine, despite empirical evidence to the contrary. I'm also sure that many people who are poor and who do have manifest fine quality of life do so in virtue of environments that ameliorate the effects of their poverty. Further, I'm sure that many ...[text shortened]... ndness, deafness, etc. tend to have lives that are worse by virtue of their disabilities.
Of course some conditions can cause suffering or shorten life in themselves, not due to how society deals with them. As said earlier, I don't oppose to working on eliminating these things. Medicine has come a long way, and I am certainly happy that for example people with Down's Syndrome have a much longer life expectancy now than they had fifty years ago.
Originally posted by snowinscotlandThere may be some parents who would not care either way, but they are probably very rare. I think most parents hope to get a "normal" child with talents and interests somewhat similar to their own.
I agree that people make decisions regarding their offspring that we may or may not think are correct.
However, I don't think you have answered my question.
'do you seriously think any parent would (in foresight) not care either way if their child had Down's Syndrome or not?'
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYes. I personally believe it's better to grow up and get to be an adult than to die as a toddler. I also personally believe that it's better not to suffer constant pain than to suffer constant pain. Yes, of course there may be people who disagree with that, just like there are people who disagree with my other points of view.
Why? Are you saying it's better to not have such a condition?
Originally posted by Nordlysso please tell me under what circumstances it might be preferable to have a child with Down's Syndrome?
There may be some parents who would not care either way, but they are probably very rare. I think most parents hope to get a "normal" child with talents and interests somewhat similar to their own.
As Nordlys has already pointed out people with impairments are only madde disabled by society. Disabled people will argue 'change society not people' If we are willing and able to change the social environment in appropriate ways , we can prevent an impairment becoming a disability. The point of the 'change society not people' slogan is that it is a mistake to assume that the only way to prevent disabilities (and to achieve equal opps) is by preventing the physical or mental impairments that result in disabilities
Originally posted by PalynkaWhy should we only listen to the non-disabled? Why should I believe them more than those who say it's better to be deaf or autistic? Most children would still be born without a disability, unless we started making genetic "corrections" to make them deaf or autistic. And being non-disabled doesn't guarantee that you'll be happy with the life you have. Do you think we should find out which attributes make it statistically most likely that the person will be happy with xyr life, and then breed people who will have those attributes? Of course if most people would have those attributes, it's not certain that it would still work that way.
And why shouldn't we listen to the non-disabled? I doubt that there is one person without disabilities that would prefer to be disabled. So yes, ex-post 99,99999% (yes, I made the number up...) of future individuals would prefer such genetic correction.