Jump to content


Photo

Euthanize Fetus With Down Syndrome?


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 02 September 2011 - 05:54 PM

Should the U.S. euthanize fetus' with down syndrome?

Note: you can watch the movie: Up Syndrome on Netflix or rent/buy it, to learn about down syndrome or search the web...
(Note: may have questionable content for teens)

#2 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 02 September 2011 - 06:48 PM

no, God is the giver and taker of live, he if one believes in the death penalty is the one decided the crime worthy of that. down syndrome isnt a sin nor does it endanger the child or mother where abortion would be the only option or death of mother so that the child could live.

#3 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 September 2011 - 04:03 AM

No, I agree with Jason.... On a side note: If you think about it, this is what happens when you have a small change (micro-evolution). 47 instead of 46 chromosomes.

#4 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5714 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 27 September 2011 - 11:36 AM

No, I agree with Jason.... On a side note: If you think about it, this is what happens when you have a small change (micro-evolution). 47 instead of 46 chromosomes.


I agree, the child has done nothing wrong and thus doesn't deserve death. However I can understand if the child was a part of a low income family and thus couldn't support a down syndrome child with the extra medical attention required, or some other grey area. But for the most part I agree that they shouldn't be euthanised, solely on the basis that such rationale was used for such attrocities caused by Hitler, and the stolen generation here in Australia.

Sorry to dissuade the topic, I'd like to add that this example is what I use to refute the mechanism of polyploidy for chromosome accumulation via duplication, (ie- how bacteria with one chromosome become organisms with multiple chromosomes)

#5 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 01 October 2011 - 10:08 AM

I agree, the child has done nothing wrong and thus doesn't deserve death. However I can understand if the child was a part of a low income family and thus couldn't support a down syndrome child with the extra medical attention required, or some other grey area. But for the most part I agree that they shouldn't be euthanised, solely on the basis that such rationale was used for such attrocities caused by Hitler, and the stolen generation here in Australia.

Sorry to dissuade the topic, I'd like to add that this example is what I use to refute the mechanism of polyploidy for chromosome accumulation via duplication, (ie- how bacteria with one chromosome become organisms with multiple chromosomes)

I wonder why abortion is consider before adoption? Maybe we can fix that somehow....

#6 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 01 October 2011 - 04:52 PM

I hate when people argue that children should be aborted because of handicaps because they will not have a "good enough" quality of life. It is such a weak argument that it seems to me a cover up for the reality that they would not want the added responsibilities that come with raising a child with disabilities. You cannot predict the future, nor know what a baby's quality of life will be. People with handicaps have their emotional highs and lows, just like we do, but I don't think anyone can argue that on average, handicap people have a poorer quality of life. It is different than what people consider normal, but it just causes them to redefine normal and adapt to it.

I also agree, that adoption would be a far better alternative to abortion.

#7 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 October 2011 - 07:24 PM

Let’s get some facts straight about Down syndrome. Jason, you make the claim that Down syndrome does not endanger the child, which is completely false. 85% of Down syndrome pregnancies result in miscarriage... that means only 15% survive to term. Down syndrome can result in abnormalities in the organs, including congenital heart disease and respiratory problems. This often requires surgery shortly after birth. People with Down syndrome are more likely to develop childhood leukemia (and other types of cancer), early onset Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, various gastrointestinal diseases, and more. So it goes beyond a mental handicap. Does that mean it’s ethical to abort a Down syndrome embryo? I don’t know. I think it depends on the individual, what they consider ethical, and if they’re prepared for the responsibly and hardships they may face if the pregnancy does go to term and the child is born. It's also important to remember that the likelihood of a Down syndrome child increases with maternal age, so most will be born to women over 35. It's probably not the 20-something mothers that are getting abortions because they don't want a handicapped child. Rather, it's the older women who may have already dealt with multiple miscarriages and years of assisted reproduction, including hormone injections and IVF. Because of this, their decision is most likely going to be well-informed and based less on the mental handicap and more on the potentially lethal physical affects of Down syndrome.

I’d be curious to know what your opinions are on other genetic abnormalities that have a lower survival rate than Down syndrome. Babies with trisomy 13 and 18, for example, only live for a few months. Would it be ethical to terminate the pregnancy in these cases? What about babies with conditions such as anencephaly? They can survive in the uterus, but they lack a normally developed brain and thus will be stillborn: they cannot survive once the placental connection is broken. Would it be ethical to abort a baby with anencephaly?

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 12 October 2011 - 08:51 PM

Let’s get some facts straight about Down syndrome. Jason, you make the claim that Down syndrome does not endanger the child, which is completely false. 85% of Down syndrome pregnancies result in miscarriage... that means only 15% survive to term. Down syndrome can result in abnormalities in the organs, including congenital heart disease and respiratory problems. This often requires surgery shortly after birth. People with Down syndrome are more likely to develop childhood leukemia (and other types of cancer), early onset Alzheimer’s, epilepsy, various gastrointestinal diseases, and more. So it goes beyond a mental handicap. Does that mean it’s ethical to abort a Down syndrome embryo? I don’t know. I think it depends on the individual, what they consider ethical, and if they’re prepared for the responsibly and hardships they may face if the pregnancy does go to term and the child is born. It's also important to remember that the likelihood of a Down syndrome child increases with maternal age, so most will be born to women over 35. It's probably not the 20-something mothers that are getting abortions because they don't want a handicapped child. Rather, it's the older women who may have already dealt with multiple miscarriages and years of assisted reproduction, including hormone injections and IVF.


You do know because you make a case for aborting the child and basically no case for adoption.

I’d be curious to know what your opinions are on other genetic abnormalities that have a lower survival rate than Down syndrome. Babies with trisomy 13 and 18, for example, only live for a few months. Would it be ethical to terminate the pregnancy in these cases? What about babies with conditions such as anencephaly? They can survive in the uterus, but they lack a normally developed brain and thus will be stillborn: they cannot survive once the placental connection is broken. Would it be ethical to abort a baby with anencephaly?


It depends on whether a person considers a child something to love with all their heart which means they will allow it to survive and have life regardless of how short it is. Or whether they consider children of lesser health an inconvenience to be taken out with the trash on trash day. True love brings joy even unto death as the video below shows.



#9 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 12 October 2011 - 11:14 PM

You do know because you make a case for aborting the child and basically no case for adoption.

I was addressing the OP, which asks whether a pregnancy should be terminated. I was not trying to make a case for the abortion of Down syndrome embryos. If a woman is considering abortion only because she doubts her ability to care for the child, then adoption may be a very good option. However, I think in most cases that would not be the only reason and thus the decision is more complex.

It depends on whether a person considers a child something to love with all their heart which means they will allow it to survive and have life regardless of how short it is. Or whether they consider children of lesser health an inconvenience to be taken out with the trash on trash day. True love brings joy even unto death as the video below shows.

Having the baby brings joy to the parents, in some cases. Does the baby feel joy? Oxygen tubes, feeding tubes, difficulty breathing, pain ... and that video shows a best case scenario, where the baby lives for over three months. Most babies with Edward’s syndrome don’t even survive for two weeks. In this case, I support early termination of the pregnancy. If death is inevitable, I think a painless death is the more ethical option than bringing a child into the world only to watch it suffer and die.

#10 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 October 2011 - 03:38 AM

ok, i will check on that .

add these diseases to the list of we need to abort so that dont suffer as well they are are genetic or link to genes that run in the family

all psychosis
alcoholism
some form of cancer.

and my younger sister and aunt both have mild forms of retardation my aunt can function more then my sister. should they have been aborted? and also what about alzhemiers ? better to kill them in utero then to let them see old age.down syndrome isnt new, its funny that after all these years with persons having it and children with that we need to abort them comes to mind . they would have miscaried.

life is more then just joy and happiness. many christians dont teach this right but its also suffering. God should be the lone being who decides who lives and dies and when me do decide to take a life it must be backed up by the very word of the being who made us all.

its funny i do wonder if isabella is against the death penalty. if so that is a contradiction a man or women who muders brutally gets to live yet the unborn not so.

#11 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 13 October 2011 - 11:37 AM

ok, i will check on that .

add these diseases to the list of we need to abort so that dont suffer as well they are are genetic or link to genes that run in the family

all psychosis
alcoholism
some form of cancer.

and my younger sister and aunt both have mild forms of retardation my aunt can function more then my sister. should they have been aborted? and also what about alzhemiers ? better to kill them in utero then to let them see old age.down syndrome isnt new, its funny that after all these years with persons having it and children with that we need to abort them comes to mind . they would have miscaried.

life is more then just joy and happiness. many christians dont teach this right but its also suffering. God should be the lone being who decides who lives and dies and when me do decide to take a life it must be backed up by the very word of the being who made us all.

its funny i do wonder if isabella is against the death penalty. if so that is a contradiction a man or women who muders brutally gets to live yet the unborn not so.


In the upcoming selective traits of babies (designer babies), all imperfections will be removed. And all mistakes terminated. Basically this is a form of eugenics and survival of the fittest where the parents make the decision of who survives and who dies. If you think about this it is no different from the Hitler mentality that existed during WW2. He decided who lived and who died. So now parents will have the power to become like little Hitlers.

I often wondered how some of the crazy sounding stuff in the book of Revelation would come true, but seeing where science is trying to take everything I now can see that it will come true. And most of it won't have to be supernatural, it will be science turning against humanity.

Designer babies: http://www.google.co...lient=firefox-a

#12 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 13 October 2011 - 11:42 AM

ok, i will check on that .

add these diseases to the list of we need to abort so that dont suffer as well they are are genetic or link to genes that run in the family

all psychosis
alcoholism
some form of cancer.

and my younger sister and aunt both have mild forms of retardation my aunt can function more then my sister. should they have been aborted? and also what about alzhemiers ? better to kill them in utero then to let them see old age.down syndrome isnt new, its funny that after all these years with persons having it and children with that we need to abort them comes to mind . they would have miscaried.

I said I support the termination of pregnancies in which the condition is lethal at birth or shortly after birth, like trisomy 18. There’s a huge difference between Edward’s syndrome and the conditions that you’ve mentioned. Mild mental retardation does not cause physical suffering and is not lethal. Cancer and Alzheimer’s often occur later in life and develop in previously healthy individuals. Psychosis and alcoholism are treatable conditions.

life is more then just joy and happiness. many christians dont teach this right but its also suffering. God should be the lone being who decides who lives and dies and when me do decide to take a life it must be backed up by the very word of the being who made us all.

So does that mean you’re against all forms of modern medicine? If your child was sick with an infection, would you refuse to give them man-made antibiotics on the basis that God should be the one to determine if they live or die? Technology has made it possible to minimize and even eliminate suffering in some cases. Personally, I fully support this because I would not want myself or my loved ones to suffer.

its funny i do wonder if isabella is against the death penalty. if so that is a contradiction a man or women who muders brutally gets to live yet the unborn not so.

In my opinion, the death penalty gives murderers an easy way out. I’m not strongly opposed to it, but I think a much more effective punishment is life in prison where they have years to feel guilt, regret, and isolation. But this discussion is off topic.

#13 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 October 2011 - 03:48 PM

uh, no the sucess rate of aa is only 10% most alcoholics die from it or other issues that stem from it.

and well if one call modern psychatric treatement of psychosis effective then why would one abort the children from down syndrome.

peter singers logic is the whole reason why. no alzhemiers runs in family and both my granddads died from it. it would pointless to allow only those terminal babies from downs to be aborted when we also have the poor dark colored persons that die from sickle cell anemia and sickle cell trait isnt much better.

so where does it stop? only healthy humans can have kids? do tell.

and no the death penalty as all punishments should be quick and merciful though the stoning thing per god or however the excution was meted in the torah days wasnt so merciful.

#14 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 13 October 2011 - 03:50 PM

In the upcoming selective traits of babies (designer babies), all imperfections will be removed. And all mistakes terminated. Basically this is a form of eugenics and survival of the fittest where the parents make the decision of who survives and who dies. If you think about this it is no different from the Hitler mentality that existed during WW2. He decided who lived and who died. So now parents will have the power to become like little Hitlers.

I often wondered how some of the crazy sounding stuff in the book of Revelation would come true, but seeing where science is trying to take everything I now can see that it will come true. And most of it won't have to be supernatural, it will be science turning against humanity.

Designer babies: http://www.google.co...lient=firefox-a



from that first page a time mag article. point well noted.



In fact, if gene therapy lives up to its promise, parents may someday be able to go beyond weeding out undesirable traits and start actually inserting the genes they want--perhaps even genes that have been crafted in a lab. Before the new millennium is many years old, parents may be going to fertility clinics and picking from a list of options the way car buyers order air conditioning and chrome-alloy wheels. "It's the ultimate shopping experience: designing your baby," says biotechnology critic Jeremy Rifkin, who is appalled by the prospect. "In a society used to cosmetic surgery and psychopharmacology, this is not a big step."

Read more: http://www.time.com/...l#ixzz1ahlanUEs

#15 rico

rico

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • USA

Posted 14 October 2011 - 08:36 AM

I was addressing the OP, which asks whether a pregnancy should be terminated. I was not trying to make a case for the abortion of Down syndrome embryos. If a woman is considering abortion only because she doubts her ability to care for the child, then adoption may be a very good option. However, I think in most cases that would not be the only reason and thus the decision is more complex.


Having the baby brings joy to the parents, in some cases. Does the baby feel joy? Oxygen tubes, feeding tubes, difficulty breathing, pain ... and that video shows a best case scenario, where the baby lives for over three months. Most babies with Edward’s syndrome don’t even survive for two weeks. In this case, I support early termination of the pregnancy. If death is inevitable, I think a painless death is the more ethical option than bringing a child into the world only to watch it suffer and die.

What are you standing on? (belief)

Using that same logic of limiting suffering...
If you are using logic of limiting suffering?
So having a baby with anencephaly/down syndrome you would recommend an abortion – which will cause the baby to suffer?

Which got me thinking of another question: do they give baby pain killers before they abort it?
Here is an article of baby Rachel with anencephaly
http://community.bab..._on_anencephaly
Her organs will be donated to save lives

#16 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 19 October 2011 - 05:43 PM

uh, no the sucess rate of aa is only 10% most alcoholics die from it or other issues that stem from it.

and well if one call modern psychatric treatement of psychosis effective then why would one abort the children from down syndrome.

I never said I agreed with abortion on the basis of Down syndrome.

peter singers logic is the whole reason why. no alzhemiers runs in family and both my granddads died from it. it would pointless to allow only those terminal babies from downs to be aborted when we also have the poor dark colored persons that die from sickle cell anemia and sickle cell trait isnt much better.

I’m not sure I follow your logic here. Alzheimer’s typically occurs later in life. Sickle-cell anemia may reduce life expectancy, but it isn’t lethal at birth. Neither of these examples is comparable to a condition like anencephaly or Edward’s syndrome, which result in death at birth or shortly after.

so where does it stop? only healthy humans can have kids? do tell.

No one should ever feel that they are obligated to terminate a pregnancy, but in the case of conditions that are lethal at or shortly after birth I think it’s a reasonable option.

#17 Isabella

Isabella

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 589 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:Cell biology, developmental biology, genetics, zoology, anthropology.
  • Age: 0
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Vancouver, Canada

Posted 19 October 2011 - 05:54 PM

What are you standing on? (belief)

Using that same logic of limiting suffering...
If you are using logic of limiting suffering?
So having a baby with anencephaly/down syndrome you would recommend an abortion – which will cause the baby to suffer?

If the central nervous system is not fully developed, the embryo will not suffer nearly as much (or not at all, depending on the stage of pregnancy) as a fully-developed infant. Using in vitro fertilization, Down syndrome could be diagnosed when the embryo is comprised of undifferentiated cells and thus would lack any neural tissue whatsoever.

Here is an article of baby Rachel with anencephaly
http://community.bab..._on_anencephaly
Her organs will be donated to save lives

That’s wonderful that those parents chose to do that. I’m pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I don’t think abortion is a positive thing, but I can completely understand why a mother would not want to go though a pregnancy that will end in a stillbirth. To say that every woman is legally obligated to have the anencephalic baby for organ donation purposes would be like passing a law that makes donating one kidney mandatory for every healthy individual.

#18 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 05 November 2013 - 03:36 AM

In the upcoming selective traits of babies (designer babies), all imperfections will be removed. And all mistakes terminated. Basically this is a form of eugenics and survival of the fittest where the parents make the decision of who survives and who dies. If you think about this it is no different from the Hitler mentality that existed during WW2. He decided who lived and who died. So now parents will have the power to become like little Hitlers.
 

Don't confuse eugenics with euthanasia. Eugenics just means "good breeding", where parents are selected for favorable traits. Every breeder does do that. And I think this even functions naturally although not necessarily consciously. Euthanasia however means "good killing" (kind of an oxymoron) or mercy killing, were incurable sick are given a less painful death. In world war II this was likely done, because medical resources became scarce for several reasons, although it may have been sugarcoated with 'humane' and 'scientific' rhetoric. From what I hear it is still practiced in many countries although not officially.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users