auntyjack wrote:
starygrrl wrote:
The reduction in Down Syndrome had no societal ramifications,
The only way that we can consider the reduction of Down Syndrome by abortion is if we value qualities which people with Down Syndrome do not have or exhibit differently as somehow less.
Or because the parents love their future children and their current family and think that they won't be able to support a child with Down Syndrome as well as they deserve.
Abortion is legal. In my mind, abortion is right. We value the people who are already here in society, already born (or developed to six months in the uterus, or if you're desperately poor and can't feed your other children, you prioritize the ones who've been around for a while over a newborn--this last doesn't/shouldn't happen in the US in this day and age, but if circumstances got dire enough and there were no adoption agencies, infanticide would be condoned). That means we desperately value the people with Down Syndrome who are already born--they're not the ones who aren't human: the fetus is.
It's not a choice between giving your love to the fetus once it turns into a child and turning your back on a potential child. If you're caring for one person in the world, you can't be caring for another with the same time and energy. The whole idea that people would so much rather have their own biological children than adopt humans who are already here in the world and often in bad foster or group home situations and desperately need someone to care for them makes me feel a little sick. People wouldn't have their own biological children if they didn't value qualities like the ones
they possess more than they value any of the people, children or adults, who would benefit greatly from their assistance, that they instead choose to reserve for someone who doesn't even exist yet but when they do,
will have their DNA.
If we say it's right to value one's own genetic offspring more than you value other humans in the world, how can you tell someone without Down Syndrome that they have to value someone who doesn't exist yet and who's got a major genetic difference from them?
Now, a better approach might be to teach them more positive messages about the prognosis of people with Down Syndrome and how it is possible to raise a child with Down Syndrome and all. Their misplaced guilt over killing a fetus (it should be guilt over their genetic greed in having a child--although I don't really want people to feel bad and I respect their biological impulse) could further propel them to raise the child.
And surely the same thing with autism. I mean, we
have good facts/info for how in most people, it's not such a big deal to have ASD. And it's still purely speculative that they're
find a genetic test. I guess what I'm most scared of is what happens when we have hundreds of tests for hundreds of conditions and quality of life varies greatly among people with any given gene--what are people going to choose? Make themselves incredibly bland, or laugh at the tests? Or will there be two factions, the mainstream who become even mainstreamer by genetic homogenization and the counterculture who still has normal genetic variance?
Are the Down Syndrome tests and abortions widely available throughout the world? It seems to me that it's unlikely the majority of humankind will have access to genetic screenings and abortions even if they're developed--perhaps one day the developed world will find itself importing all kinds of genetic "freaks" from the developing world, then wake up and realize how hugely successful and awesome the genetic variance it's been trying to eliminate is.
I have a gene that's actually
broken, which might kill me at any time and hugely runs up the costs to society of my medical care. I'm glad I was born, and I think it's quite possible that if I was conceived twenty years from now, I would have been aborted. There's a real danger if insurance companies or some other force start
requiring screenings and somehow forcing abortions--and that would be eugenics/genocide and should not be tolerated. But that's a far cry from allowing parents to choose for themselves. If someone's lying to them about the severity of the effects of the genetic condition the fetus has, we should be screaming from the rooftops and ringing bells and blaring sirens to get them to understand the truth. If they're uncomfortable with any departure for "normalcy", well, I'm already fighting that battle on several fronts. We're going to win, because it's clear that there's more and more tolerance for diversity with every generation. But it doesn't help to call the other side monsters when they're making really tough decisions and trying to do the best for their families. We can make them think by providing them with new information instead.
16 Jul 2009, 12:41 pm
