1-0 to the cartoon

[kattahj]

Apparently, an adaptation being wildly different from the original isn't always a bad thing.

My previous post made me look up some of my old cartoon favourites, including Quest for Camelot. Which is a crappy movie in so many ways, but as any true fan, I look at what could be rather than at what is

Comments

[sarcasticwriter]

This is the world, after all, in which it's seen as a good thing that Denmark has 50% fewer children born with Down Syndrome since Nuchal translucency testing was introduced.

Uh...okay, I'm stumped. I can't see any possible objection to a reduction in Down's Syndrome cases via genetic screening. It's a debilitating disease that prevents many, if not most, of its victims from achieving self-sufficiency as adults. To be doomed to perpetual childhood is unbelievably cruel. Not to mention, Down's Syndrome is packaged with many physical diseases nobody should have to suffer, and a short life expectancy. I can't see any prospective parent wanting to subject their precious child to those horrors.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's morally wrong not to terminate a Down's Syndrome pregnancy (or any other similarly crippling mental disability that tests positive). Providing fifty years (or more!) of decent care for such patients is prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of the world's population. State-run care systems can not - and should not - be depended upon to provide quality care. So giving birth to a person who will always be a dependent is not only risky, but selfish and cruel. The circle of life dictates that parents die before their children. Even if loving, caring, incredibly wealthy parents provide the best of care to their Down's Syndrome-suffering child, it's still likely that they'll die first, stripping their child of its social network and basic critical care.

Every human being deserves the opportunity to provide for themselves, to be a dependent of no-one. It's cruel to introduce anybody to the world who will never be able to experience that basic human dignity.

And no, this does not apply to people who suffer from Achondroplasia (dwarfism) or genetic disorder that lead to blindness, deafness, or other physical limitations. Those are disabilities that do not hinder sufferers from supporting themselves as adults.

I know this is something you feel passionately about, so I hate to disagree with you, but I honestly can't see even the slightest benefit in not screening for Down's Syndrome.

[kattahj]

I work with people who have Down's Syndrome, and I'm sorry, but I'm not having this discussion with you. I wish I could, but if you really want rational arguments I'm sure you can get them elsewhere. I can't even articulate beyond the rage. You and I have very different philosophical outlooks on life, human responsibility, dignity and so on, and we're always going to clash on these issues. I have accepted this fact. I ask you to accept that I cannot discuss this with you.

[sarcasticwriter]

I can respect that. I hope, when you cool down, you'll consider maybe writing an LJ entry about your general experiences and especially why people should not have genetic screening/selective abortion. I won't even comment on it, if you'd rather I not.

I will say that my views on genetic screening have nothing to do with actual living Down Syndrome sufferers. Once a human being is able to survive without heroic measures outside of a womb, they're entitled to life (until the moment they attempt to commit murder, anyway). I'm not advocating that any living person be treated badly. No way.

And a last thought that will hopefully persuade you to forgive me a little. I'm very aware of the fact that a woman's body will spontaneously abort (miscarry) 95% of genetic abnormalities, and that this happens in 50% of first trimester pregnancies (most women who miscarry never even know they're pregnant). Unless it was brought on by violence or some other external force, miscarriage is usually an indication that a woman's body knows when something's wrong and to reject a fetus when it will not survive. I see it as a completely natural, normal, positive process, and genetic screening with elective abortion is nothing more than an extension and improvement of nature's process. Like immunization and water sanitation, it's a powerful technological achievement that can help humanity to really improve how future generations live. It's a beautiful thing, and a right that every woman should have. I really believe that.

Again, I'm not trying to engage you in debate, since that's clearly not what you want to do. In fact, I'll assume you won't be responding. But I did want to take the chance to soften my previous post a little by explaining how I feel the abortion process (both natural and elective), and why it's no big deal for me to contemplate using elective abortion, at least until less intrusive methods of insuring health and wellbeing in new infants are developed.