|
Post by mouse on Oct 22, 2010 10:37:11 GMT
What are those social reasons? If you are talking about the risk of power imbalances then would that apply in the case of cousins? genetic inheritence..abuse etc
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2010 11:36:50 GMT
<<No business of the state I say. becomes the bussines of the state in countries where the state has to keep them some downs are not capable of looking after a gold fish let alone a child[social workers coment]..wouldnt understand the process of giving birth etc let alone be capable of looking after a child or the physical health to have or look after a child luckily not all downs are the same..and the degrees of disability vary It wasn't my remark Mouse! But if the st ate's only concern is that they have to foot the bill, I'd feel unhappy about allowing it to interfere. However, I believe that your concerns, as mine, would be for the welfare of children. Down children are often born with distressing complications.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 22, 2010 12:34:05 GMT
becomes the bussines of the state in countries where the state has to keep them some downs are not capable of looking after a gold fish let alone a child[social workers coment]..wouldnt understand the process of giving birth etc let alone be capable of looking after a child or the physical health to have or look after a child luckily not all downs are the same..and the degrees of disability vary It wasn't my remark Mouse! But if the st ate's only concern is that they have to foot the bill, I'd feel unhappy about allowing it to interfere. However, I believe that your concerns, as mine, would be for the welfare of children. Down children are often born with distressing complications. absolutely..very disrressing re the state..i think it a very valid point that if the state is obliged to foot the bill the state then the state should via its officers have a strong imput into what is is and isnt willing to acept i can see no problem on the surface of sex between people with disabilities downs or other....but the means of considerable abuse is there..... them having children i am not happy about...and the state being expected to pick up a very large bill is a decidedly iffy situation...far to many already producing children they cannot ,,do not and will not care for.. should we really be fostering unrealistic expectations.....am not so sure that this isnt cruel to people whose expectations are unlikely to be fully fulfilled and who in many cases cannot cope physically or mentally every case on its merits is the only way to deal with this rather than a broad yea or nay....but try explaining this to some one of limmited understanding...very difficult
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Oct 22, 2010 13:05:09 GMT
All kinds of stupid people breed away without interference from the state. We don't use IQ tests to work out who can breed and who can't. There are many people out there who are borderline simpletons and who have children. Sometimes their decisions to have children cost the state a fortune, as they are completely unable to look after them.
I fully accept that.
The idea that individuals with one specific genetic abnormality (DS people) should be singled out and prevented from marrying is nasty eugenics.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Oct 22, 2010 13:06:26 GMT
P.S. Mouse, someone who lacked capacity to the extent you described, whether this was because of DS or for some other reason, would be protected under legislation for vulnerable adults and adults without capacity.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 22, 2010 15:06:24 GMT
All kinds of stupid people breed away without interference from the state. We don't use IQ tests to work out who can breed and who can't. There are many people out there who are borderline simpletons and who have children. Sometimes their decisions to have children cost the state a fortune, as they are completely unable to look after them. I fully accept that. The idea that individuals with one specific genetic abnormality (DS people) should be singled out and prevented from marrying is nasty eugenics. Dearest Riotgrrl, With this reasoning the ban on incest will be declared unconstitutional as well.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Oct 22, 2010 15:38:11 GMT
All kinds of stupid people breed away without interference from the state. We don't use IQ tests to work out who can breed and who can't. There are many people out there who are borderline simpletons and who have children. Sometimes their decisions to have children cost the state a fortune, as they are completely unable to look after them. I fully accept that. The idea that individuals with one specific genetic abnormality (DS people) should be singled out and prevented from marrying is nasty eugenics. Dearest Riotgrrl, With this reasoning the ban on incest will be declared unconstitutional as well.Well, I've already stated that I think there are strong social reasons why incest is a taboo relationship. But some DS people are better able to cope with life than some non-DS people at the lower end of the 'normal' intelligence scale. That's my point. To make blanket generalisations about what people with DS should and should not be allowed to do is very bigoted imho. People with DS are individuals, with different levels of understanding, capabilities and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2010 19:18:03 GMT
P.S. Mouse, someone who lacked capacity to the extent you described, whether this was because of DS or for some other reason, would be protected under legislation for vulnerable adults and adults without capacity. On another board, I read about a DS couple who had got married. The bride talked things over with her mum, and as a result, went on the pill. Now, that makes me think she had a lot more sense than most of us!! But what if a DS couple are set on having kids, even though the risks f serious problems to both the mother and the child are explained- not to mention the strain that for caring it will put on their extended family and an already overburdened state? Do we assume that just because they go ahead anyway, they aren't able to think clearly? Once againa, it is not the fact that the couple cannt care for the child so much as the serious physical complications that could arise. If we don't approve of siblings breeding why condone a partnership that carries greater risks?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Oct 22, 2010 21:42:17 GMT
Skylark, you disappoint me. I think I've already addressed the points you make.
I've said that the difference between siblings and DS people is social/psychological, not just genetic.
I've said that anyone - DS or not - who is incapable of making their own decisions and caring for a child, etc. should be under the control of the state.
I just don't accept that every human being who happens to have DS falls into that category and I'm deeply uncomfortable with these attempts to legislate for a particular type of person with a particular type of genes, making rules for them that restrict their freedom compared to those with different genes.
What about diabetics? There is a risk there of serious health conditions in children. Should we prevent them breeding?
What about those with a history of heart disease or breast cancer, both caused by specific genes. Should we legislate for them?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2010 6:05:57 GMT
OK, but it is the genetic risks I'm most interested in.
Someone with a known genetic disorder who carries a risk of passing on that same disorder has at least made it to puberty. Thanks to science, once the gene has been isolated, embryo screening can eliminate the chances of having a child with the same defect - although of course there may be others.
However the offspring of incest are likely to have inherited just about any ghastly disorder and deformity known to man, and probably some that haven't, if the parents have inherited the same recessive gene. Perhaps the risks to a Down offspring are better known; even so they sound pretty serious.
And I think the point I'm trying to make is that I disapprove of people who insist on the right to breed when they have been aware of the high risk of producing a distressingly handicapped child. I'm sure I'm not alone. The question I'm posing is - should our view over-ride theirs? And what about parents who simply can't understand what the problem is all about, because they are incapable of doing so? Will someone have to make the decision for them?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Oct 23, 2010 6:33:50 GMT
Even the well functioning Down's Syndrome people, like Monica and David need supervision. Monica's mother is always around to check up on them. They were the main characters in the Documentary film "Monica & David" ( see the trailer above ), but to say they are now pursuing "their acting careers" is just PC talk. Even if they could have a normal child against all odds they would be unfit as parents and role models. The real world would bust any such illusions to the contrary!
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 24, 2010 14:07:49 GMT
And I think the point I'm trying to make is that I disapprove of people who insist on the right to breed when they have been aware of the high risk of producing a distressingly handicapped child. I'm sure I'm not alone. The question I'm posing is - should our view over-ride theirs? And what about parents who simply can't understand what the problem is all about, because they are incapable of doing so? Will someone have to make the decision for them? the parents who cannot understand what the problems are need a high dose of reality...be they downs or the parents of downs and yes our view should over ride... and have already aknowledged a problem exists any couple who cannot without considerable help... totally care for them selves.. and house,,feed and provide for them selves is expecting the wider comunity to make decissions and provide for them ...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2010 16:55:59 GMT
Did anyone follow Robert Winston's programmes when he tracked the development of children born at the start of the millennium? One couple had learning difficulties, though they managed without daily help and were in no way as handicapped as the DS couple feature here. However, they clearly weren't the brightest in the box: you saw their hopeless efforts to erect a self assembly toy cupboard (well, okay, so that doesn't really prove anything. We all struggle with self assembly).
Anyway, all the children were assessed, and their little girl was diagnosed as a real couch potato. The parents were given advice, and instead of plonking the child in front of the TV, they made a real effort to stimulate her into physical activity. When they re-tested, the child was completely transformed, and outshone nearly all (if not all) the others in that test.
So I think I rather warm to the idea of parents who need help, and recognise that they need help. It is the stroppy "don't interfere with my rights" brigade we need to watch!
|
|