Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe so, wouldnt matter here. The suggestion was that people who use the term mentally retarded are not knowledgeable on the subject. This will be a surprise to the numbers of professionals in the field who use the term, and who, unless the poster I responded to is a professional in this field also, are very likely much more knowledgeable about the issue than he is.
Mentally retarded was once considered a sensitive and acceptable name for these folks, even by themselves and their parents. But time moves on, and people are intent on finding new ways to get their feelings hurt. In 50 yrs we will be searching for a new term to replace "developmentally disabled" , on the basis it implies the subjects cant fully reach their potential or some other reason.
But the term is still common among actual professionals in the field, even if just among themselves.
As long as we protect the rights of those who want to terminate pregnancies with discovered birth defects, I am fine with the phony feel-good terminology. I won't use it myself. "Mental retardation" is accurate, descriptive, and concise when describing a disease like DS. There is no reason not to use words that perfectly fit the disease, unless evasion of reality is the goal.
it is what it is, the problem with the annihilating of down syndrome, what else you want to add to that menu- it is not the only birth defect by any means- why not go tell Jimmy Kimmel his child should not have come-into the world- ? there is NO perfection if their bodies- are prefect, they could be azzholes - see how many nice looking guys in prison-- or better yet, in politics spending our tax dollars
Kimmel and his wife get to make their own decisions. Others get to make their own. In many cases abortion might be the kinder choice for the child as well. I have a friend with a severely disabled child who has been wheelchair bound all her life, has had to be in the care of her parents and will be until they both die, at which point she will either have to be cared for by a sibling the rest of her life or go into a nursing home for the rest of her life to be cared for by people she doesnt know. Since her mind is fine, she knows she is a burden, and she realizes what life has in store for her. Who can say if she had had a say that she wouldn't have chosen not to exist and spend her life that way? I have friends who work in the field who have had to wash feces off of grown men who have smeared it all over themselves and over the bathroom walls, and who must be guarded 24/7 against hurting themselves or others. Who would choose to live that kind of life, or who would want to make a child live like that?
it is what it is, the problem with the annihilating of down syndrome, what else you want to add to that menu- it is not the only birth defect by any means- why not go tell Jimmy Kimmel his child should not have come-into the world- ? there is NO perfection if their bodies- are prefect, they could be azzholes - see how many nice looking guys in prison-- or better yet, in politics spending our tax dollars
I would add any birth defect that prevents normal independent human functioning. When you are planning to bring life into the world, it is perfectly reasonable, moral, proper, rational, and logical to seek a pregnancy that is free of defects that would yield a human being that is basically going to be the equivalent of a pet, in that it will be completely dependent forever.
That is not to say that it is not equally moral and proper to go to term with a pregnancy that will end in a handicapped child.
It is fine either way, if the parents make the choice. The point here is that the choice not to accept a defective pregnancy is perfectly fine and perfectly moral.
I don't accept the viewpoint that it is incorrect to end a defective pregnancy. Not everyone wants to provide endless palliative care to a human that never had a chance at a normal life. And yes, there is a NORMAL life. That does exist. And it is not unreasonable or immoral to have a normal child as the goal of a pregnancy.
That doesn't mean perfect, it just means normal. A kid with 5 working senses who can grow, learn, play, develop normally, and one day have a productive job, a chance at fulfilling big dreams, and not have to deal with a life limiting disease. Diseases can happen anyway, and kill or limit you before your time. That's luck and chance. But to reject a pregnancy with a known and profound disease? That is totally fine and completely and unassailably moral and acceptable.
I would add any birth defect that prevents normal independent human functioning. When you are planning to bring life into the world, it is perfectly reasonable, moral, proper, rational, and logical to seek a pregnancy that is free of defects that would yield a human being that is basically going to be the equivalent of a pet, in that it will be completely dependent forever.
That is not to say that it is not equally moral and proper to go to term with a pregnancy that will end in a handicapped child.
It is fine either way, if the parents make the choice. The point here is that the choice not to accept a defective pregnancy is perfectly fine and perfectly moral.
I don't accept the viewpoint that it is incorrect to end a defective pregnancy. Not everyone wants to provide endless palliative care to a human that never had a chance at a normal life. And yes, there is a NORMAL life. That does exist. And it is not unreasonable or immoral to have a normal child as the goal of a pregnancy.
That doesn't mean perfect, it just means normal. A kid with 5 working senses who can grow, learn, play, develop normally, and one day have a productive job, a chance at fulfilling big dreams, and not have to deal with a life limiting disease. Diseases can happen anyway, and kill or limit you before your time. That's luck and chance. But to reject a pregnancy with a known and profound disease? That is totally fine and completely and unassailably moral and acceptable.
Very well said. You and I usually disagree but I concur with this 100%
As long as we protect the rights of those who want to terminate pregnancies with discovered birth defects, I am fine with the phony feel-good terminology. I won't use it myself. "Mental retardation" is accurate, descriptive, and concise when describing a disease like DS. There is no reason not to use words that perfectly fit the disease, unless evasion of reality is the goal.
Would you be ok with forced sterilization of people who carry the Downs gene?
Would you be ok with forced sterilization of people who carry the Downs gene?
No, not forced. Such a person should probably decide on procreation using all the available data. Let's say it's 50/50 for Down's Syndrome. I would have no problem with a couple trying several times for a normal child, and aborting those that are conceived and test positive for DS. If it were 90/10 in favor of retardation, I would advise, but not force, such a person to refrain from procreation, and consider adoption or other means of starting a family.
Would you be ok with forced sterilization of people who carry the Downs gene?
The vast majority of Down Syndrome cases are genetic accidents, meaning they are not hereditary. In a very small number of cases, there is a possibility of inheritance, but it is by no means definitive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
