BA turns girl away because she has Down's syndrome

Post Reply New Topic

Because the genetics are not yet understood at this time, does not mean they are not implicated. It is clearly hereditary, which strongly implicates genetics. With it being a spectrum condition, I am sure any underlying genetic implications would in themselves be complex. In time it is highly likely there will be a test of some sort.

This is a fair enough policy. An alternative would be to have a medical cert saying the passenger was ok to fly.

"A test of some sort" is not a test for autism. There will never be a test for autism. That's pretty clear already. The very studies that show a genetic connection make that clear. Quite simply, the genetic connection is not strong enough. Being able to test for a whole lot of different genes that are associated with a higher incidence of autism is not at all the same as testing for autism. There will never be a genetic test for autism because autism is not genetic. Genes are a factor, but it's still not genetic.

define socially acceptable behavior please,

this could mean anything and as such is no better than judging on an idividual basis.

the other two do make sense.


(edit) even many of the genetic tests today may be found very inaccurate once we understand none coding dna and it's role in the human genome, before that genetics is nothing more than a fingerprint with some statistical relations.

It's not my definition to make. The airline is the one that sets its policy. I would imagine it encompasses things like not yelling or throwing tantrums or other activities that get people normally kicked off aeroplanes.

Actually. Bloodheart recently said she once worked at BA; she may know more about the guidelines if you're interested.http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp3781052.html&highlight=#3781052

because of down syndrome she can't be independent to ride a lone shame on them

Ignoring the obvious issues with this that other people have pointed out, anyone could have a child with Down's. I mean, I don't see a mention of her having been particularly at risk for having a child with Down's syndrome, and even if she was, there are plenty of at-risk mothers who give birth to children with no disabilities whatsoever. She had no real reason to assume her child would have Down's syndrome.

So, you're implying that every single pregnant mother should be forced to have an amniocentesis and thorough genetic testing to discover any potential disability, which would cost billions — so even ignoring how unethical it is to say everyone with a particular disability should be aborted, it's still a pretty ridiculous idea that could never be financially feasable and takes away a pregnant woman's bodily autonomy.

And besides all that, let's say she did have an amniocentesis, and it came out wrong. She gives birth to an otherwise perfectly healthy daughter with Down's, and then... what? It's suddenly okay for the airlines to discriminate, because she shouldn't have been born?

In other words, even if that argument wasn't offensive, it just doesn't make sense at all in regard to this topic. It's just inflammatory, and apparently deliberately, which, if you weren't aware, is what trolling is. Generally, trolling doesn't help you get along with others on the internet.

If she was smart enough as her mother said then BA should get a damned grip.

The tests aren't always 100% effective. My cousin had tests done they came back negative, but her daughter has Downs. Her daughter learns a little slower, but is right on track for someone about two years younger than her.

I find your conclusion that fetuses that test positive for a disability ought to be aborted highly disturbing. What about when they have a test someday for Autism? I like being alive thank you. My life has had some pretty sucky portions to it, but I don't believe that means I shouldn't have had the chance to live. What of autistic individuals and other 'disabled' people that have contributed amazing things to society? The point to having a civilized society is that you don't have to kill those that can't preform their assigned purpose, allowing them to find and serve a purpose finding solutions to problems we sometimes didn't even really know we had.

I respect the fact that this is your opinion, but I can not remain silent about an 'opinion' that is essentially advocating for eugenics, even if that opinion is held in compassion.

I don't want a response here, I don't want you to defend your position to me, or explain your reasoning. I simply wish you would spend a moment to think about human individuality, and what gives a human it's value. No to people are alike, and no two people can contribute the same thing or fill the exact same roll, making each person one of the single most valuable things in existence.

Unless you are a geneticist I really think you have no right to make bold claims to suggest that something clearly isn't genetic. At this current point in time we do not know everything there is to know about the human genome, as much as we would like to say we do, therefore it is quite possible that a few years down the road there could be a concrete link between genes and autism. Sure there may not be 1 gene in particular, but once we can completely understand the code we can then create an algorithm that takes known autistic gene segments and ties them together and searches like google to determine the likelihood of a child having it. With significant testing at that point you could feasibly ascertain the cause of it all.