Should people with Down Syndrome reproduce?

On one side people think that they are free to do what they want but others say that they shouldn't as they're deliberately creating disabled people.

I think they should adopt instead but it's a hard question.

Reply 1

xoxAngel_Kxox

Original post by TheYearNiner

Actually, that's rubbish, as the vast majority of cases of DS aren't hereditary. So even a baby with two DS parents only has a 1% chance of the condition.

However, questions need to be asked as to whether they would be capable of looking after a child - and just like social services would check on all parents who look like they're struggling, assessments would have to be made.

It should never be a "x group of people can/can't reproduce" situation. It depends on how severe their own condition is, and how much family support they have.

Some people with DS would be perfectly capable of looking after a child, and others with more severe physical aspects of the condition probably wouldn't even be able to physically cope with pregnancy and labour. There can never be one rule.

Reply 2

username1221160

Correction: they aren't deliberately creating disabled children. Children born to a parent with Downs syndrome don't necessarily inherit the syndrome, it's just the risk is increased.

Reply 3

username2400323

They should be able to have kids imo.

Reply 4

tsr54321

Original post by TheYearNiner

Should only 0.0000001% of men reproduce? (You need the women otherwise numbers will fall too low.)

Reply 5

rockrunride

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

So even a baby with two DS parents only has a 1% chance of the condition

Taking this evidence, and the following from the NHS:

Apparently any woman over:

•

20 years of age has a 1 in 1,500 chance

•

30 years of age has a 1 in 800 chance

•

35 years of age has 1 in 270 chance

•

40 years of age has a 1 in 100 chance

•

45 years of age has a 1 in 50 or greater chance

So, OP, therefore by this logic should we ban women over 40 from reproducing?

Reply 6

Rakas21

Yes.

As harsh as that sounds, for the good of society we should be discouraging undesirable traits. We also have a surplus of adoptable children.

Reply 7

TheYearNiner

Original post by Rakas21

Yes.

As harsh as that sounds, for the good of society we should be discouraging undesirable traits. We also have a surplus of adoptable children.

See thats what I mean

Reply 8

username1221160

Original post by Rakas21

Yes.

As harsh as that sounds, for the good of society we should be discouraging undesirable traits. We also have a surplus of adoptable children.

Which specific traits do you consider undesirable and how should we discourage them?

Reply 9

tsr54321

Original post by rockrunride

Taking this evidence, and the following from the NHS:

Apparently any woman over:

•

20 years of age has a 1 in 1,500 chance

•

30 years of age has a 1 in 800 chance

•

35 years of age has 1 in 270 chance

•

40 years of age has a 1 in 100 chance

•

45 years of age has a 1 in 50 or greater chance

So, OP, therefore by this logic should we ban women over 40 from reproducing?

If these are the true statistics, I am surprised you don't see more people with Down's Syndrome.

Reply 10

the beer

Original post by xoxAngel_Kxox

Actually, that's rubbish, as the vast majority of cases of DS aren't hereditary. So even a baby with two DS parents only has a 1% chance of the condition.

That doesn't sound right, i think the 1% relates to the number of cases, people with down syndrome don't tend to have children.

"There's around a 1 in 2 chance of a child having Down's syndrome if one of his or her parents has the condition."

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/downs-syndrome/causes/

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 11

the beer

Original post by tsr54321

If these are the true statistics, I am surprised you don't see more people with Down's Syndrome.

Most are aborted.

Reply 12

rockrunride

Original post by the beer

Most are aborted.

This, unfortunately.

Though I am a libertarian and cannot vouch for anything but almost complete freedom of choice to abort, I do feel it is a thin veil for the practice of eugenics.