Should people with Downs Syndrome be allowed to have children?

[PrayingMantis]

As you can see, for 2 people with Down syndrome having babies, the chances are as follows:
-25% chance their child will be typical (no Down syndrome)
-50% chance their baby will have Down syndrome
-25% chance there will be no viable pregnancy

Health and Medical issues for people with Downs Syndrome
http://www.dseinternational.org/en-g...ndrome/health/

I don't understand. Why are people with Downs and other extremely debilitating brain disorders who are at high risk of passing on their disability, allowed to have children? Why bring a child into this world you know is going to suffer and get made fun of with risks for MANY more medical conditions? People love to sugar coat things and pretend to be more moral by claiming mentally retarded children are a miracle sent down from god and a gift to the world, instead of just a mistake in nature. The thing is, we already have enough "gifts" aka children. Currently, there are over 7 billion humans on Earth right now. With the exception of the old and those with medical conditions which cause infertility, anyone can have a new baby. Anyone can have a kid. Not everyone has the good judgment necessary to be a good parent.

These people are not equipped for life. Not everyone is created equal. Very few people will go on to become doctors. Even a smaller amount of people will go on to make a important medical related or scientific discovery. The average person has a ton more to offer than the developmentally delayed. In the entire history of those who suffer from extremely debilitating retardation, there might be one or two times where they have accomplished something great. Even then, I assume they got awards because people felt bad, not because they deserved them. I believe it to be selfish to force the developmentally delayed to live a life that rarely amounts to anything in order satisfy our own selfish religious needs and duties. They DO feel, and their life will mainly consist of misery, pain from their laundry list of medical conditions, and exclusion, because they are barred from the other "part" of society.

Sure, the developmentally delayed have our sympathies, but most of us want nothing to do with them. I would argue those who are against sterilization/abortion in these cases are only projecting their lack of actual concern for the developmentally delayed. Instead of doing the right thing, our culture sweeps them under the rug. Give them drugs, have them be the garbage collectors around high schools, eventually moving up in position to walmart greeters. We keep them in wheelchairs working minimum wage jobs for their entire life, always in our shadows. Is it in any way moral, to force someone into a world that wants nothing to do with them, so we can offer our sympathy?

What happens after the parents die? Is someone going to love them enough to care for them as their parents did? Are they going to find love? Chances are, no. Unless the family is financially well-off, after the parents pass away, the child is going to be left all alone and live the rest of her/his life in poverty since people are much less willing to hire disabled people. Would you date someone with Down Syndrome? Someone autistic? Would you date someone with mental retardation? No. A lot of the time they end up living their life alone and die lonely.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

When you try to tell people who have Down syndrome that they can't reproduce because their kids have a high chance of having Down syndrome, you're basically telling them that they were better off never having been born.

[Grimbold21]

But at what stage in pregnancy can you detect such things?

[brirrspliff]

should people with an IQ below 120 be allowed to have children? or people who had a cancer-victim within the last 3 generations of their family? the answer is yes.

[Deleted]

i personally think they shouldnt its not that they cant have children adoption is fine but i dont think its fair to intentionally burden a child (however i think they are infertile most of the time anyway) its just not fair to breed a disorder i sort of feel the same way about a lot of disorders its just not up to the parent to decide if a human being should be burdened forever just because they want a child when there are other ways of obtaining one. If you personally belive you have to pass on your own genes for it to be your child and you have a major disorder (damaged genes) then your just being cruel and ignorant (though this is all my opinion and im sure many people disagree.

[smelltheglove]

i assume by your odds here you are assuming 2 downs syndrome mating? those are the same numbers for 2 dwarfs pairing as well, and i see no reason to limit the procreative rights of consenting adults. that leaves the question of whether one considers downs syndrome people legally adults or not, which is a different question

[Deleted]

When you try to tell people who have Down syndrome that they can't reproduce because their kids have a high chance of having Down syndrome, you're basically telling them that they were better off never having been born.

it depends if its 100% going to have it and on top of that its not questioning their parenting skills its just not the parents place to decide if a human being should be born with a disability because they need the child to be their own dna

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

As for an answer, I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on this. I haven't really thought about it and don't intend to because it's such a trivial matter.

it depends if its 100% going to have it and on top of that its not questioning their parenting skills its just not the parents place to decide if a human being should be born with a disability because they need the child to be their own dna

What you said didn't make any sense.

If you deny people with Down syndrome from procreating simply because their child could have Down syndrome, you are implying that the person you are denying the ability to procreate would also be better off not existing.

[SL1200]

This is a horrible thread, and the op is a horrible person for posting it.

[cityguy193]

you're basically telling them that they were better off never having been born.

Yes. They are a mistake, a genetic mistake. And allowing them to pass their own disease is disgusting. There are ways around it, but cursing a new human baby for life when we have the technology to ensure otherwise should be criminal.

They can have children, through adoption, but cursing them with downs is disgusting.
There are ways to selectively pick the combination of sex cells from each parent in order to ensure a 100% no downs baby, but it will not be natural. I support that.

[shadowdasher]

Where do we stop after telling them they can't? The only thing I see coming next is the same as the Nazis did. First, anyone with downs, then anyone with a family history of heart problems, and so on and so on.

[Terahertz]

This is a horrible thread, and the op is a horrible person for posting it.

You're basically telling him he can't have his own opinions omfgwtfbbq

Tbh, I think doctors are whatever should advice people with down syndrome againt pregnancy due to the risks... but that's just my opinion.

[Funky Kong]

When you try to tell people who have Down syndrome that they can't reproduce because their kids have a high chance of having Down syndrome, you're basically telling them that they were better off never having been born.

So you'd rather spare their feelings than prevent them from having a kid cursed to be disabled for their entire life?

[Fernii]

When you try to tell people who have Down syndrome that they can't reproduce because their kids have a high chance of having Down syndrome, you're basically telling them that they were better off never having been born.

Chances are that they would be better off never having been born. I am completely opposed to downies having children.

[speehs]

If you're going to take that step, why not prevent anyone with any severe genetic disorder from breeding? There's always a chance of passing on the disorder, even if the other parent is normal. We could at least reduce the prevalence of several diseases that way. So why not take the next step? That's a genuine question, not rhetorical. I don't know the answer either.

[Funky Kong]

Where do we stop after telling them they can't? The only thing I see coming next is the same as the Nazis did. First, anyone with downs, then anyone with a family history of heart problems, and so on and so on.

As soon as I see someone reference Nazis or Hitler as their first line of defense in their argument I can't take them seriously.

[smelltheglove]

As soon as I see someone reference Nazis or Hitler as their first line of defense in their argument I can't take them seriously.

for once it's actually applicable. while hardly the pioneers in the field of eugenics it was at the core of their philosophy. they simply went about doing what many have proposed before and since

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Yes. They are a mistake, a genetic mistake. And allowing them to pass their own disease is disgusting. There are ways around it, but cursing a new human baby for life when we have the technology to ensure otherwise should be criminal.

They can have children, through adoption, but cursing them with downs is disgusting.
There are ways to selectively pick the combination of sex cells from each parent in order to ensure a 100% no downs baby, but it will not be natural. I support that.

So what you're saying is that we should actually just kill them off, because they're better off not existing than existing?

Chances are that they would be better off never having been born. I am completely opposed to downies having children.

So you'd rather spare their feelings than prevent them from having a kid destined to be disabled?

This is the same kind of logic that could be used to justify killing people with Down syndrome. I mean, if we're fine denying them rights and the justification for that is that Down syndrome people are better off not having had existed in the first place, what's so wrong with killing them off? I mean, hell, we can even harvest their organs for some real people.

[Funky Kong]

Freedom is very important.

You don't think that sounds a bit idealistic? Being "progressive" for no reason other than being "progressive" perhaps?

[wowisme]

I am a nurse working in a facility that houses developmentally disabled adults. People with Down's Syndrome can have highly varied levels of disability, some are higher functioning than others and are capable of living independently IF they have a good support network. Some claim they can live independently without a support network. I am inclined to disagree. Because of this, I say no.

Down's however, is not an inheritable disorder. It is caused by a genetic malfunction that CAN HAPPEN TO ANY FEMALE IN THE WORLD! That isn't the reason to exclude them from having children.