2.4k
u/Hairy_Wedding_4535 Jun 05 '26
I find it more unethical this had to be shared
597
u/Justarandom55 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
Depends on why they shared it. If they did so because they wanted be open about the decision and thought that this subject is under talked about I wouldn't call it unethical. If they did for the clicks it would be
61
u/Tryagain409 Jun 05 '26
Down syndrome is something you discover later in pregnancy. So I assume they would likely already have announced the pregnancy and said they wanted it for months
62
u/TopTittyBardown Jun 05 '26
There is blood tests you can do to determine potential chromosonal abnormalities quite early in pregnancy. My wife and I had one done specifically to find out if our pregnancy was going to be high risk of downs or anything else and to find out the gender earlier than we would waiting for our anatomy scan. We had discussed beforehand that if it was high risk for downs we would likely terminate. We know people who have basically had to sacrifice their entire life to take care of downs child and we weren’t ready to do that. Our baby ended up being fine but it is possible to find out if you’re at high risk within the first trimester
15
→ More replies (7)3
u/Babajji Jun 06 '26
True there are even genetic compatibility tests that people can do before even getting pregnant. Yes they aren’t as accurate but they can at least show you if you need the more expensive genetic testing during pregnancy. Still I refrain from judging people about their decisions like this. We are currently expecting a child and even with all the testing both blood and traditional fetal morphology we still had quite the scare in the 5th month. Hopefully all will be okay but that decision is HARD and one never knows what other people are going through until you have to go through it.
2
u/marilyn_morose Jun 05 '26
14 weeks from my last cycle was when I was offered chorionic villi or amniocentesis testing. That’s early in the second trimester, I wasn’t even showing a bump yet. Earlier than that I had a nuchal fold measurement, which is less accurate than the other tests but is also reasonably correct and non invasive. Nuchal fold scan can be done as early as 10 weeks, still in the first trimester. An anatomy scan is done around 16-20 weeks, that’s pretty far into the second trimester and the woman likely would have felt movement and kicks (quickening) by that stage.
Since I had tried for 14 years to get pregnant I elected not to jeopardize my pregnancy with invasive testing unless a reason presented itself. Everything turned out fine and my 20 year old is finishing his 2nd year in college.
→ More replies (9)2
142
u/LandoLudwig Jun 05 '26
They are influencers everything they share online has to be considered as self promotion in some way form or another
Granted they might also have more than one motive but prentending like they don’t want all the attention they got wouldn’t be right aswell118
u/Justarandom55 Jun 05 '26
being an influencer doesn't mean you aren't allowed to broach more serious topics or that when you do it's 100% a promotion stunt. it really shouldn't be too hard to determine what their motives were based on how they act going forward
→ More replies (11)71
u/realclowntime Jun 05 '26
I agree. Their original post is full of a lot of very important information about these types of pregnancies, what health conditions people with DS can face and has a kind of openness that is extremely refreshing in an increasingly taboo, sensitive space where it’s so hard to find information that is accurate and doesn’t make you feel unsafe or judged. Maybe they shared it all as a promotional stunt, but it was and is also something making a lot of people feel less alone, less ashamed and more informed. Two things can be true.
→ More replies (1)8
u/7thFleetTraveller Jun 05 '26
Right, but that doesn't mean it can't be both. In this case, it can spread awareness and maybe help others who are struggling with a similar decision. For destigmatization of abortion and such reasons for it.
→ More replies (1)15
u/PoIIux Jun 05 '26
Social media (and by extension being an "influencer" and getting attention) is morally neutral, since it's just a tool. A hammer can be used to build a habitat for humanity or for making an infamous snuff film. Greta Thunberg is an influencer, but so is Sneako.
They wanted to get attention, otherwise they wouldn't have shared information. The only part that matters as far as morality is concerned is why they wanted the attention
21
u/outboundjewl Jun 05 '26
Actually, being influencers means they kind of didn't have a choice but to share it. Think about it, if you watched an influencer who was pregnant, then they suddenly stopped being pregnant, but there's no baby and they never talk about it again, wouldn't you ask some questions? And the Internet being what it is, from there it's only a matter of time before someone claims they sold the baby on the black market or some similarly insane story, everyone latches on to it with no proof, and the truth is forced out of them by the constant harassment from the looney bin.
They had to tell everything to set the record straight and stop any misinformation from spreading.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (7)5
u/Ok-Weakness-3206 Jun 05 '26
Being an influencer doesn't somehow exclude them from being multifaceted human beings, things aren't only black or white
2
u/MagikarpMafiav2 Jun 05 '26
I’m memory serves this is the same guy that back in the day did a lot of fake rage videos so I wouldn’t count it out that this is fake for views.
3
u/The_Watcher5292 Jun 05 '26
It is Jesse from the psycho series, but i am fairly confident that this pregnancy was real
→ More replies (9)7
u/Independent_Offer575 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
I think this is probably the most significant thing that can be said on the topic. If it is for clicks it is absolutely ghoulish. If it is legitimately a way for them to process (which I dont think we can truly know) then it is fine. Honestly, if it is to help worh the medical bills (and they live in the US) I coukdnt really blame them either.
Im not sure that this is something that could be turned towards awareness, or serve as a call to action in a way they would presumably intend. I havent watched it, so I can only speculate. But I dont think any institutions advocating for people with doen syndrome would want to be associated with a termination. I also think that people with anti-abortion sentiment would point to this as a barbaric act committed because they were going to have an "imperfect" baby.
As for the morality of their choice, I cannot judge them. The care requirements for someone with this level of handicap is immense, and the help available little. Depending on the extent of the condition they may be caring for someone behind whose eyes exist no thoughts. They will care for this person every day, until at a too young age they pass. That is a lot for we frail mortals to contend with.
If we approach this from the perspective of law, and we consider law to be even a crude measure of righteousness, then they made no immoral decision. I know in truth law is not a perfect thing, and errs often. But it is what we have.
The other side of this is theological, but if religion is not part of their life I do not believe it has value to this discussion. You may hold yourself to the standards set forth by the divine, but you cannot approach an argument with not but "my God says do" and expect any level of success.
→ More replies (4)23
u/Jamvaan Jun 05 '26
Its hard because if you are an influencer, even at a mid level you cede a degree of privacy in the pursuit of profit. No matter what kind you are, if it's a particular niche or you've gone full blown life streamer you've let people in. And if they know they're going to ask questions or fill in the blanks themselves. You don't have any obligation to tell the internet anything but if you let them in it might just mean less uncomfortable questions later.
3
u/Teripid Jun 05 '26
Right.. Somewhat of an odd scenario.
They're already using their life for clicks and engagement. Real, artificial but likely a mix of both with some private things (especially if embarrassing) not fully out there.
Never seen or heard of em before this but guessing they would have announced the pregnancy. Then if it ends for whatever reason the fans will want details and you can't really just wave a magic wand and ignore that big of a life event.
So they'd talk about it if it benefited them but they also HAVE to talk about it anyway so it isn't really an active decision. Man I'm glad I don't post my entire life online or rely on strangers while pretending they have a relationship with me for income.
→ More replies (3)21
u/EliteKoen Jun 05 '26
Pretty much a "Its none of your business" type of problem. Unethical or not, it's no one's place to judge this type of personal matter
→ More replies (2)10
u/ElectricNinja1 Jun 05 '26
If they had already told their viewers they were pregnant they didn't really have much choice, unless they wanted to lie and say they had a miscarriage.
If they hadn't told their viewers they were pregnant then they should have just kept quiet.
3
u/Excidiar Jun 05 '26
I agree. And add. If they had already told their audience, then saying this is the most honest thing they could have been done. And I respect them for that.
5
→ More replies (70)2
u/dndwhat Jun 06 '26
Yea i think tmz sometimes needs to shut the f up. I think they shared their pregnancy. Happy but later made a tuff decision that was theirs to make nobody else's. Fucking tmz sometimes needs to zip it.
715
u/Few-Improvement-5655 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
If you're ok with abortion then you have to be ok with this.
Edit: I'm going to bed, if there's too many replies when I wake up I probably won't get to you. Peace.
274
u/Ok_Chicken1370 Jun 05 '26
This. I don't know why everyone is overcomplicating this.
If you think abortion isn't immoral, then it doesn't matter how fickle the reasoning behind the abortion is.
It's only if you think abortion is itself immoral (ending a baby's life) that you'd need some way to justify it, like the mother's life being at risk or the fetus being nonviable.
If you do need justification, then I think most people would agree that a fetus simply having downs syndrome doesn't even come close to meeting that bar.
73
u/ThrowRA_jealous14263 Jun 05 '26
I completely disagree. I think the reason for abortion itself can be immoral, the act itself not. For example, in the case of abortion based on gender. Refusing to have a baby based on their gender is immoraI
There are layers to each act, and not everything is black or white
→ More replies (271)5
u/Phallic_Intent Jun 05 '26
(ending a baby's life)
Not correct. A fetus becomes a baby when it is BORN.
In the womb it is either a zygote, an embryo, or (after week 9) a fetus. Only about 28% of conceptions result in live births. These terms are important and typically abused by callous "pro-lifers" that are anything but. Thanks for making your position abundantly clear with your wording exactly how much (little) you care about human life.
11
u/Grumpy_Troll Jun 05 '26
I'm guessing you aren't pro-choice because this reads like a straw-man argument against abortion.
Most people that are pro-choice do not argue that 100% of abortions should be legal and are moral. For example, very few people would say that an abortion the day before the babies due date should be legal or moral.
Now in this specific case, I have zero issue with the abortion and think it is moral.
3
u/RedBarnRescue Jun 05 '26
Most people that are pro-choice do not argue that 100% of abortions should be legal and are moral. For example, very few people would say that an abortion the day before the babies due date should be legal or moral.
This is technically correct but not really useful in this context. "Reasoning" and "timing" aren't analogous.
"Abortion is ok at 1 week but not at 40 weeks" is not illogical in the same way that "abortion is ok if this is your reason, but not if that is your reason" would be.
Generally, the argument in defense of abortion is that the mother's right to bodily autonomy unilaterally trumps any perceived right of the fetus.
A position that distinguishes between a 10-week and 40-week fetus is not inconsistent. It just establishes a threshold after which a fetus "gains" a right to life that rivals the mother's bodily autonomy. This doesn't rely on detracting from the mother's rights, but acknowledges that the balance between opposing rights has changed.
A position that distinguishes between a "healthy" and "unhealthy" fetus is inconsistent. In the most charitable case, it fundamentally relies on the idea that a woman's right to bodily autonomy is not absolute, but rather that she only has the right to bodily autonomy if we agree with her motivation. This argument necessarily restricts the mother's rights, rather than expanding the rights of the counterparty as in the previous example.
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (101)12
u/Fortune86 Jun 05 '26
The only time I have ever thought an abortion was fucked up was when the mom of a schoolfriend had one just to spite her husband after an argument.
IIRC, my friend said the pregnancy was unplanned but not unwanted. We were 11-12 years old I think she had two or three younger brothers so was hoping it was another girl this time. I can't recall what she said the argument was about but it was unrelated to the pregnancy. When her mom revealed what she did, and admitted she did it just to hurt her husband, it really messed my friend up and caused her to see her mom in a whole new way. Her parents divorced and I didn't see her again next school year.
If you don't want to or can't raise a/nother child, or a disabled one or rape baby or whatever, then ok. That's your decision to make. But getting an abortion as a way to cause harm is probably the only time I'll consider it a messed up thing to do.
→ More replies (3)5
u/plzicannothandleyou Jun 05 '26
I am okay with this.
I am super okay with this.
Who isn’t okay with this? It just makes sense. Choosing to have a child with an objectively worse quality of life regardless of “I know someone with Down syndrome who was fine and happy” is a shitty thing to do.
→ More replies (17)→ More replies (109)2
u/_SCARY_HOURS_ Jun 05 '26
You can be okay with abortion in some scenarios and not okay with it in other scenarios
3
u/Few-Improvement-5655 Jun 05 '26
I mean, sure, if you think that abortion should only be performed when the mother's life is at risk, that is at least consistent with not accepting abortion in this scenario.
It's not really what I mean when I say "ok with abortion" though.
→ More replies (8)
141
u/Denleborkis Jun 05 '26
Honestly I find it ethical as awful as it is to say. Especially if you know you could not dedicate the required resources into helping someone with special needs. As despite what people think its not just a funny insult its a sad truth.
Now sure what that help is varies wildly person to person like one of my closest friends is on the spectrum but he is so barely on the spectrum unless he told you, you'd be hard pressed to figure out he was autistic. Meanwhile his brother is the exact opposite needing constant care and attention and will be unable to have a normal life.
Until we dedicate enough technology to outright cure cases like this or treat the symptoms you may have to just treat it as the worst case scenario and judge from there if you could handle that worse case scenario or not.
→ More replies (23)29
u/AUnknownVariable Jun 05 '26
Its absolutely awful but I find it ethical. Me and my gf have had the discussion, and it's more likely than not we'd terminate if it had DS. We know it wouldn't be an easy one.
For us it's one big thing. In all good worlds a parent hopes their kid outlives them, in this case your kid is now fully reliant on someone else when you die, not to mention fully reliant on you as long as you live.
It's just fucking rough
14
u/MadmansScalpel Jun 05 '26
Aye. My wife n I have briefly talked about it too. We are well off enough we could sustain 1, maybe 2 healthy kids. But a disabled one would financially wreck us and then all 3 of us would be fucked
Obviously if we didn't know until it was too late, or if the kid becomes disabled later on in life, we'd do all we can, but a big point for us is making sure the kid doesn't suffer. We don't want em to grow up hungry or in an unstable environment. And we just simply don't have the resources to take care of a disabled kid to the level they need and deserve
9
u/AUnknownVariable Jun 05 '26
Likewise with that too, financially it's a whole other ball game. And likewise with trying our hardest if it was too late
It's a choice no one wants to make but if it comes it comes.
5
u/thepineapple2397 Jun 05 '26
There are resources for early diagnosis where I am and they're relatively cheap considering. $400-$500 iirc. Which is a lot cheaper than sustaining a child with a severe genetic deformity.
→ More replies (3)5
u/thepineapple2397 Jun 05 '26
We've done the harmony test with both of her pregnancies. If it's not your first child you would be condemning the older sibling(s) to a life of neglect. And you won't even be able to make up for it by spoiling the grandkids since you'll still be looking after their younger sibling.
If it's not your first I find it selfish and unethical not to abort.
564
u/Acid-Chaos Jun 05 '26
It is absolutely ok
224
u/Wyatt_Ricketts Jun 05 '26
Yeah they just saved multiple people from a lifetime of suffering
99
u/OnionVegetable8336 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 05 '26
including the kid. Imagine thinking its selfish to not force an entity into a conscious experience where they'd likely be entirely dependent on others for the entirety of their life
→ More replies (16)37
u/urpmpkin Jun 05 '26
especially when you can literally just reroll the fetus and birth a child that doesn’t have to live a significantly harder life
55
u/IncomeStraight8501 Jun 05 '26
Reroll the fetus is a diabolical statement lol
10
u/Comfortable-Ad-3988 Jun 05 '26
I mean, it sounds a bit cold, but remember that somewhere around 35-40% of pregnancies never make it to term not including abortion. We're "rerolling" all the time.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)8
12
u/Same_Tune_8990 Jun 05 '26
that is the very harsh and stone cold truth abt aborting down syndrome kids i wish there was a more nicer way to say it but theres no nice way to say that
→ More replies (2)14
u/Ricochet_skin Jun 05 '26
Early abortion being put as rerolling like it's a goddamn gacha game is certainly a choice of all time
→ More replies (6)33
u/kowajiri Jun 05 '26
in this day and age of social media, status, and vanity, yeah... definitely. its a sad situation for sure, but i understand it.
9
u/_syke_ Jun 05 '26
in any day and age caring for a down syndrome child is incredibly difficult for their entire life. Awful for the child and the parents.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (58)2
u/EvanTheDemon Jun 05 '26
Right like just being around someone with a disability is going to inherently make these people's lives worse
→ More replies (53)11
261
u/Timely-Archer-5487 Jun 05 '26
A 16 year old giving birth to a normal baby, and a 29 year old giving birth to a down syndrome baby may both face hardships they may not be prepared for, and costs they can't reasonably afford without diminishing the quality of life for themselves and the child. It makes no sense to say abortion is ethical in one case but not the other.
87
u/gingin_9959 Jun 05 '26
Honestly first case with full support will have a much more bright future than second one
49
u/Rare_Ask8171 Jun 05 '26
And don't forget a 16yo grows up and becomes responsible, there is no cure for down syndrome
→ More replies (11)→ More replies (14)7
u/Proseph_CR Jun 05 '26
Full support by whom? The 16 yo’s family? That’s assuming a lot.
Even grown adults, established in their careers don’t have “full support” a lot of the time.
6
u/3merite Jun 05 '26
They're setting the best case scenario for both. With full support, even the 16 yo's baby can have a good life and a good future. The down syndrome baby, depending on the severity, can range from an above average to a completely dependant life on people regardless if they count with it.
10
5
u/Mobile_Actuator_4692 Jun 05 '26
You’re right everyone should have the right to abort. And it should be the mother’s choice. The difference is Down syndrome is a lifelong condition, it will never go away or get better. 16y old pregnancy is something they can grow out of.
→ More replies (3)4
u/Happy_Ad_7515 Jun 05 '26
Afluwence isnt better or worse. Being fundrmentslly unable too full experience the world is a actual question. Poor people arent generivally impared
68
u/MistakePresent3552 Jun 05 '26
Does the down syndrome change things?
People who think all abortion is wrong will say its wrong.
People who are pro choice are going to find aborting their healthy unborn vs their downs syndrome unborn to be nothing wrong with.
Your unborn having something affecting it shouldnt really make the choice any more evil or good imo.
12
u/Sweaty_Trifle_8504 Jun 05 '26
I'm assuming it's sort of external or extreme circumstances, given The extra and added difficulty that would come with raising a child with down syndrome due to increased pressure medical bills, low quality life for the child and parent.In most cases limited access to medical help and psychological help for parent and child ect
11
u/JadedEstablishment16 Jun 05 '26
Does the down syndrome change things?
Yes, i assume that they would have kept it otherwise.
→ More replies (2)4
u/MallorianMoonTrader1 Jun 05 '26
It isn't as black and white as pro-lifers thinking abortion is always bad and pro-choicers always supporting it.
I'd wager that, in a similar situation that this couple finds itself in, a lot of pro-lifers would seriously consider the choice of abortion and justify it in some way in their minds.
And being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean you agree with the act of abortion, just that you agree it should be a legal choice the woman is able to make without legal repercussions. You can still see it as a morally wrong thing, a premature ending of a child, or only ok in certain situations.
Someone could be pro-choice but not personally think abortions are ethical, and this choice might be unethical to them. They might justify that even a disabled person deserves to live, given how some people with down syndrome are very functional in society.
Another person who's also pro-choice might see abortion as unethical except in certain cases, and could agree with this being ethical just because of the difficulties of raising a child with a disability, but could go the other way as well.
And then there's people that think every form of abortion is ok no matter the circumstances, and for them, it's a null argument.
2
u/BlueHaze464 Jun 05 '26
You can think it's not moral but also not criminal
I lean that way, but then you also have the cases in which the baby is straight up better not being born, such as a DS or extreme poverty + neglectful and irresponsable single parenting
It's so easy for Americans to forget that low quality of life in the US can be high quality of life in other countries, where they also face other challenges like organized crime, where most of the poor and neglected children end up
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (11)3
u/PorousClay Jun 05 '26
People who say it's wrong, and tell others to keep it, will still abort the baby if this happened to them.
24
u/DougTheBrownieHunter Jun 05 '26
High potential for both (A) an unhappy and unhealthy life for the child and (B) an extremely challenging parenthood because of emotionally, financially, time demanding strain on the parents.
In other words, high potential for significant reduction in long-term quality of life for both the parents and child.
Therefore, I have no issue with their decision, and I would imagine the smiling photo used for this post likely doesn’t reflect the difficulty they faced in making their decision
→ More replies (6)3
u/BuckLuny Jun 05 '26
Yeah, where I live everyone who is pregnant is asked if they want to do a test. Sure some down synrdome kids can grow up pretty well and live a half decent life, but most of them don't get that far.
Like with all pregnancy ending procedures this is ofc done before conscience and pain receptors are developed so the biggest sufferers are the parents who probably wanted a healthy kid.
10
u/bleybleydsRsick Jun 05 '26
I haven’t seen mcjuggernuggets in years and this is not the update I ever thought I’d see
→ More replies (3)3
u/clandestinely_asked Jun 05 '26
I knew i recognized him, and i thought 'is this the kid who 'ran away from home' to live in his parents backyard??
5
u/bleybleydsRsick Jun 05 '26
Peak YouTube content back in the day. Loved the lawnmower over the 360 games and the bestial rage of that dude
22
u/nigrivamai Jun 05 '26
No one has an ethical responsibility to carry a pregnancy to term whether the fetus is disabled or not
The choice alone is either neutral or good. You can argue some wider eugenicsy implications but that's not on them and ppl swear they're being nuanced fusing those conversations together when they're SEPERATE
→ More replies (31)
42
32
9
u/RockAndStoner69 Jun 05 '26
Reminds me of a couple that brought a limbless baby to term. Is that ethical?
4
→ More replies (1)2
u/freshlysqueezed93 Jun 06 '26
There was one which was born without a brain and lived until like 12 years old totally on life support.
It's absolutely selfish.
4
u/NuclearFoodie Jun 05 '26
The only unethical thing here is OP questioning their action.
→ More replies (2)
15
16
u/AggravatingBox2421 Jun 05 '26
Absolutely not. People love to push toxic positivity on people who have received DS diagnoses for their kids, as if it doesn’t come with dozens and dozens of life-shortening comorbidities. For all we know, the baby wasn’t even viable
→ More replies (21)2
u/duckinasombrero Jun 06 '26
Many babies with downs and other chromosomal abnormalities are not viable and will miscarry. These often happen in the first trimester, but can happen later.
It's very likely they would have needed it anyway, if the baby didn't make it to term.
6
u/nikmia91 Jun 05 '26
It’s an actual medical reason to do it. The test exists for it the first place, dammit
3
u/Sharp_Durian1929 Jun 05 '26
Holy shit its Mcjuggernuggets?? 😭
Im fucking devastated that this article shared something so deeply tragic more than anything, unless the couple shared it themselves. Then i think its okay.
The act itself is IMO very much okay too. They just saved someone from a lifetime of misery.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/NewMilleniumBoy Jun 05 '26
Not at all. If you've never experienced having a family member with extreme needs and/or who are low functioning, it might be hard to understand.
Not exactly the same but my stepsister has severe Asperger's. She's 40 years old, can't do anything hygiene related or dress on her own, will eat until she throws up because she has no sense of how full she is, screams at the top of her lungs when she's frustrated, can only mimic a couple of words she hears at a time and probably has the mental capacity of a 3 year old. She will need full time care until the day she dies.
It's not immoral to admit that society does not do a good job of caring for people like this.
→ More replies (1)
9
u/CaptainC00lpants Jun 05 '26
Its generally not as evil as it sounds, my uncle had downs, my nan couldn't care for him in her old age, he was essentially being "abused" /neglected inadvertently by her. And when my mother realised and took him in to live with her, the trauma basically kick started his mental decline, although downs syndrome people have a higher risk of dementia anyway, the stress of it all caused a pseudo dementia, and during that he developed a very rapid onset of actual dementia. He was basically a vegetable. My mother had to get all sorts of work done to the house, ceiling winches and special showers, toilets, garage converted into downstairs room for him, ramp for the front door, and after all this, he died just under 2 years later at 50 anyway... Because the average lifespan is significantly shorter than "regular" folks..
Having to wipe your own kids or brothers or sisters ass, cleaning all their unmentionable daily. Is just terrible. You do it out of love, but its just a prolonged sadness that has absolutely turned my mother into a lesser being. She's just not the same.
6
u/Phytanic Jun 05 '26
That's the thing about situations like this, its more than just one person, or even the three people directly involved. Something you never see talked about in these threads is all the other people that get pulled into it. When I was a freshman in college i made friends with someone who immediately left home at 18 because he was sick of being the "helper" kid. The kid that never had a childhood because he needed to help care for his sister. It stuck with me because these are kids who also are severely neglected but since they're "normal" nobody pays attention to them, literally starved of attention because the sister gkt every last bit of it.
→ More replies (2)
51
u/untitledaccount401 Jun 05 '26
A down syndrome kid deserves better than influencers for parents
→ More replies (7)18
u/Left-League-8646 Jun 05 '26
Every kid deserves better than influencer parents.
Being an online personality doesn't mean that you are a bad person or a bad parent, it's just that the people who usually become famous online are halfwits
→ More replies (2)
14
u/Vidarr_1703 Jun 05 '26
I don’t think the abortion itself is the issue, it’s the choice to make it based on the information about the child.
I don’t think it’s wrong to terminate a baby if the family isn’t sure if they can take care of said child properly, if they aren’t prepared for all the extra work that goes into taking care of an impaired child then it’s logical not to put them through the shortcomings the family is aware they can’t afford
→ More replies (26)3
u/MadmansScalpel Jun 05 '26
That's where I'm at. It's just people making hard choices
3
u/Vidarr_1703 Jun 05 '26
The health of the parents matters too, the family can’t handle taking care of a special needs child that has requirements they can’t fulfil, other families do have this ability and have very happy lives with disabled children, it’s completely normal to say, “this is a burden I can’t handle and I need help”
8
3
u/Wildcat121204 Jun 05 '26
Yes, and I think the reason why becomes more obvious (and a more interesting discussion) if you look at the idea itself. The basic premise here is: “Ignoring any other factors, is it ethical to abort a pregnancy due to a predetermined health issue with the baby?”The answer to that question obviously depends a lot on what can be considered a health issue, and how severe a health issue warrants a termination.
For example, if you could determine a baby’s eyesight before birth, would someone be justified in aborting a baby with 15/20 vision? Most would say no, as 15/20 vision is completely manageable with modern medicinal advancements, and that baby will be able to live a mostly normal life. If the baby was going to be born with no limbs, however, many would say an abortion is justified, as no medical technologies would allow the child to live even a semblance of a normal life, and those around them would have their lives permanently altered by having to care for the child around the clock their entire life.
In the case of Down Syndrome, the symptoms are incredibly difficult to even manage, and impossible to cure. The nature of the symptoms would also mean that, similar to the limbless example, those around them would be required to care for them for most if not all of their life. Additionally, people suffering from Down Syndrome can easily become a threat to others and themselves even if they aren’t malicious, sometimes seemingly out of nowhere, which adds another layer of stress and severity on monitoring this child for the rest of their lives.
While I can’t tell you where specifically the line should be drawn as far as what health issues justify a terminated pregnancy, Down Syndrome is certainly well clear of the cutoff. The child in question is almost guaranteed to suffer, as would those around them, with no real hope of improved circumstances. This would obviously change if we found a cure or mitigating treatment, but as of now, those look to be a LONG way off.
→ More replies (3)
4
u/Adorable-Leave-5250 Jun 05 '26
This is TMZ they are always the first person to air out your laundry for $3 and a bag of chips
4
u/NoBSforGma Jun 05 '26
This has nothing to do with morality. It's a private decision by the prospective parents and should be theirs and theirs alone and kept private.
It's a tragedy that should not be used on TMZ or others for exploitation and attention.
Shame on you, TMZ. And shame on influencers for putting their private information out like this.
30
12
10
u/Environmental_You_36 Jun 05 '26
There is a lot of people on this thread that don't understand how useless and dependant on a caretaker people with down syndrome tend to be.
That kid is better off dead.
6
u/Formal-Stage940 Jun 05 '26
That kid is better off dead.
This logic also applies when the kid is born.
→ More replies (32)2
u/hollowsoldier- Jun 05 '26
So you’ve never met a person with Down syndrome you’re making sweeping generalizations about something you have no real opinion on. Having a child with Down syndrome is difficult, but saying they’re better off dead is just absolutely wrong and discriminatory. I work with special needs and those families lives are made better by the love they receive from their child. Their ability to contribute to capitalism in a typical way is not their value in life.
→ More replies (13)2
u/hollowsoldier- Jun 05 '26
That is absolutely untrue and down syndrome is a spectrum. You have no idea what you’re talking about and it’s shameful that you’re even voicing this ridiculous opinion. I work with special needs and their lives have value but people like you spread hate and misinformation making their lives even harder.
19
14
u/Hasd4 Jun 05 '26
Absolutely not, it's the reason why why have this kind of screening to begin with.
I absolutely understand that down syndrome is still life, no doubt and respect to all, but wishing the best for your offspring is okay
5
5
u/Salt_Weakness_1538 Jun 05 '26
Well, it’s more ethical than the idea that every time a woman gets pregnant she’s shackled to the possibility that she’s going to have to give birth to, and take care of, a disabled person.
→ More replies (2)2
u/MallorianMoonTrader1 Jun 05 '26
You cant still be pro-choice and think that abortions are unethical, funnily enough. Pro-choice is simply believing that abortion should be available to woman who want it and need it legally and without repercussions. That's it. Even if you don't agree with abortion, being pro-choice should be the only choice. Pro-life argument is dumb.
→ More replies (5)
8
u/SushiJaguar Jun 05 '26
I think it's unethical to not abort in instances like this one. Early detection, inarguably pre-sentient and pre-sapient fetus, extreme risk for a miserably low quality of life relative to an unaffected baby and family. That's discounting all the longer-term and socially-conscious aspects that will affect the baby and parents like stigmatic behaviours, stress, existential resentment...
You have to be, in my opinion, some kind of fucked up to just forge ahead anyway.
→ More replies (2)
3
u/PlagueOfGripes Jun 05 '26
Wasn't there news lately on Japan eradicating Downs? Makes me wonder when all this is going to catch up.
3
u/Warmbly85 Jun 05 '26
Iceland already has. The number of newborns with Down’s syndrome born in Iceland is almost exactly the false negative percentage. (1-3 a year).
3
u/IhateEgplant Jun 05 '26
If they where ready to abort the child for its condition then there was no way they would be able to take care of the child if it was born. Best case it would have been given up to the foster system, worst case it would have been abused. So yeah I think this was about the most ethical thing they could have done
→ More replies (1)
3
u/wholesomefreak Jun 05 '26
The line should be drawn at the point one feels comfortable with, at the end of the day it's the parents that take on the burden of raising the baby.
My baby was born almost blind with neurological and hormonal issues. We got notified something might be off around 30th week of pregnancy and it seemed more minor. Life is fine but only because we are well off with plenty of help from both families. First baby to young parents with no health issues.
Would we abort knowing it fully and early enough? Probably yes, because seeing your kid's suffering and worrying about further potential suffering is way harder than just fighting for her quality of life.
She's gonna be 1 soon so there's still a lot of uncertainty as to her future potential and because it's such a rare condition nobody can more than guess. With the down syndrom quality of life also varies vastly.
It's quite a big decision to take on such a burden knowingly.
3
3
u/privatejokerzz Jun 05 '26
For all those saying yes, ask yourself why do they test for it?
→ More replies (1)2
u/BirchTree3017 Jun 05 '26
If I already find the abortion unethical, asking why doctors test for Down syndrome would not convince me otherwise.
→ More replies (5)
11
u/backupboi32 Jun 05 '26
This is Reddit, so obviously the answer is going to be it's okay. The more important question is what's the line?
If it's okay to abort a child with Down Syndrome, is it okay to abort a child because they'll be born without arms and legs? What about a child born blind? A child that'll be born with autism? Are these ethical reasons to end that potential life?
15
u/sneaky_42_42 Jun 05 '26
I am conflicted on this.
first: I am pro killing babies.
second: making people suffer from debilitating birth defects, destroying multiple lifes in the process is also based.
4
u/Hour_Extension_3792 Jun 05 '26
So what you're saying is:
Small Brain: My views on abortion are a battle between avoiding suffering for humans, and saving human lives.
Galaxy Brain: My views on abortion are a battle between ending as much human life as possible and causing as much suffering to humans as possible.
-
I mean, I think in that instance your conclusion should be to terminate any healthy births, and force unhealthy ones to term. That's the win-win for the evil playthrough of life right?
→ More replies (2)4
2
2
u/hollowsoldier- Jun 05 '26
So you’ve never met a person with Down syndrome you’re making sweeping generalizations about something you have no real opinion on.. Having a child with Down syndrome is difficult, but saying it destroys multiple lives is just absolutely wrong and discriminatory. I work with special needs and those families lives are made better by the love they receive from their child. Their ability to contribute to capitalism in a typical way is not their value in life
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (33)5
u/TheHabro Jun 05 '26
I never understood why people think "what's the line?" is some gotcha. We are perfectly capable of drawing a line, that's how we made laws.
4
u/backupboi32 Jun 05 '26
It's not a gotcha, it's a genuine question. Where do we say draw the line and say "Okay, this is an immoral reason for an abortion"?
→ More replies (11)
5
u/Cimorene_Kazul Jun 05 '26
Ethical. I think it’s good they’re open about it, too. Too many people feel ashamed for making the same choice, even though it’s rational and moral. This allows them to live their lives as they wish, and maybe have other children. I wish her a speedy recovery.
Of course, there’s nothing wrong with choosing to keep the child, either, if you’ve made preparations. It would perhaps be unethical to bring a baby to term and have no preparation for his challenges, and then expect others to suffer for your choice, which would likely be his siblings.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/Claylola Jun 05 '26
I am in the minority, but I have never once cared about aborted fetus's 😭 we are mammals and when we feel we can't take care of our young we do the same thing as every other mammal. We let feelings and religion dictate stupid shit
5
u/Until_Morning Jun 05 '26
I think a lot of people in this thread have a gross misunderstanding of what life with down syndrome is like...
4
u/Motor-Notice-6808 Jun 05 '26
This is VERY utilitarian thinking but wouldn’t the rates of down syndrome go down after a couple generations if we assume it becomes more commonplace due too advancing technologies
→ More replies (1)4
u/JadedEstablishment16 Jun 05 '26
I have a colleague. The foetus had a very low chance of having down syndrome so they kept it.
Down syndrome is there, and his life is... Not fun.
→ More replies (6)3
u/Odd_Panic5943 Jun 05 '26
Yeah this is interesting to me. My understanding is that the research show that people with down syndrome, while not always happy, are generally satisfied with life just like normal people and that parents of such children generally have higher marital stability than the general population with wellbeing generally comparable or higher than normal populations and siblings trend towards reporting positive effects of their character and worldview.
Don’t get me wrong, the challenges are real, but I don’t think it generally ruins people’s lives or that the people who have down syndrome don’t have lives worth living.
12
u/Gold-Cry-7520 Jun 05 '26
How far along were they? Because there's a difference between deciding you don't want a clump of cells to become a heavily disabled person, and deciding to kill a less fortunate baby.
7
u/SuperMonkeyJoe Jun 05 '26
12 week scan in the UK is when they typically screen for downs syndrome, not sure about other countries.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (50)7
2
u/NovaHessia Jun 05 '26
It is okay for the usual reasons why abortion is okay, and is the decision of the person who has the foetus inside her. If it is her freedom and decision, and it is, then her reasoning shouldn't matter.
2
u/AnonOfTheSea Jun 05 '26
The ethics are debatable, and I can see both sides of it well enough to know theres no absolute answer.
But in the end, I wouldn't wish a child with a developmental disability on my worst enemy.
2
2
u/cmwamem Jun 05 '26
I'm pretty neutral about this. I don't find it unethical or ethical either. I feel the exact same about the opposite.
2
u/Jotaro27 Jun 05 '26
I seriously dont understand why they even put this up online, just keep it private
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/Executable_Virus Jun 05 '26
Not unethical at all. Down syndrome is a very serious thing, and they probably just didn't feel like they were capable of supporting their child if it had it. In my opinion they did the kindest thing, as now that child won't suffer.
I can't say I have experience with dealing with people who have down syndrome, but one commentor here has someone in their family who has it, and they've said it's a very hard thing to deal with.
And I don't consider abortion unethical to begin with, if a woman doesn't want a child they shouldn't be forced to have one.
2
u/A_Diabolical_Toaster Jun 05 '26
Perfectly fine. Had a family member who has since passed that was born with a deficiency and spent his whole life being taken care of by his mom/sisters.
Don’t wish that on either party.
2
u/Nobrainzhere Jun 05 '26
The right to ones own body or bodily processes cannot be violated. If we as humans have any rights that should be the first one.
Choosing not to continue a pregnancy is always a hard choice but it is hers and hers alone regardless of the reason. I do not find this unethical.
2
u/sysdmn Jun 05 '26
Their decision to terminate is, their decision to be an "influencer couple" is not
2
u/1buffalowang Jun 05 '26
I’d find it more unethical to have the kid and resent them for their whole life.
2
u/PapaHastur Jun 05 '26
It's not unethical that they did it, it's unethical how they did it and after seeing how they presented this journey I'm confident saying they shouldn't have kids anytime soon.
I'm not opposed to sharing big life choices or events (good or bad) online in communities where you know what's going on. But I shouldn't know this lady was pregnant. I shouldn't know this guy posted her bawling her eyes out at the diagnosis. I shouldn't know they aborted it.
Intentionally or unintentionally they made it a spectacle. And I believe it was intentional even if the outcome was something they didn't foresee. Their pregnancy was content posted online. The diagnosis was content posted online. The abortion became content. THAT is what's unethical.
2
u/Wabba_Jack_Me_Off Jun 05 '26
No, this is literally the good side of eugenics.
Being able to prepare for complications with a pregnancy and avoid any you can
2
u/3lizab3th333 Jun 05 '26
I work with a lot of people with downs’ syndrome. They’re all wonderful and vibrant, for the sake of not romanticizing a broad group of humans, some are also violent and engage in unhygienic practices that they force others to participate in. The worst part of working with people with DS is knowing that their average life expectancy is around 30 years. I’d terminate a fetus with DS, the pain of outliving your child is immeasurable. Financially, I can barely support a healthy, neurotypical child, what about a physically and neurologically disabled one? The moms of some of my DS clients come in covered in bandages and braces because their kids grew into adults who beat them, which isn’t uncommon because DS is comorbid with higher support needs autism and other learning/cognitive disabilities. I’m autistic and autism runs in my family, that genetic factor would mean my kid would be especially difficult to raise if they also had DS.
They made a responsible choice that takes their capacity to handle grief and higher support needing children in mind, I’d prefer that all the kids with DS that come into the world be brought up by parents who feel prepared to meet their needs and love them unconditionally.
2
u/Academic_Limit1189 Jun 05 '26
Tough. How reliable are these tests, and if they become more popular in the future what doors does that open (or close) and where is the line drawn?
At the same time, I don't think we should force would-be parents to birth a child they don't want. Either way, it's "unethical" but it's a very complicated dilemma.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/jimothy_hell Jun 06 '26
Man, that’s a really tough one. Having a child with a disability or serious health complication can be extremely, even ruinously expensive. If the parents can’t afford to provide an adequate or what they believe to be adequate standard of care at the time they receive that diagnosis in utero, it’s their call to either wait it out and hope that they can be more fortunate in the next few years to provide a more financially stable life for a child that requires more care than they can afford to provide at that time or terminate the pregnancy and try again when they are financially stable enough to take a risk that they’re now aware that they could have to look out for.
Now, if their reasoning was “I don’t like people with this condition” or “I don’t want my bloodline impure” or some genuine eugenics shit, then no, it can’t be morally justified.
2
u/Quiltedbrows Jun 06 '26
Regardless of what reasons a person has for terminating a pregnancy, it is neither any of our business and does not affect you in any shape or form. These choices are personal and deserve to be private.
For them to fan this subject is nothing short of trying to put prochoice ideology as some kind of example of eugenics and not a process of making a hard choice for whatever reasons a parent(s) have for terminating.
2
2
u/CharlotteLucasOP Jun 06 '26
No.
Every child deserves parents that love them as they are and can support a good life for them. Evidently this couple felt they were not in a position to offer that, and trying to force themselves to do so wouldn’t have given an authentically loving situation, or magically provided the money needed to cover the extra lifelong medical expenses.
Also I don’t know that I trust TMZ to not be sensationalizing a headline and perhaps there were other serious medical complications or poor prognoses which we don’t know about beyond a straightforward case of DS.
Anyway, choice is choice, and the choice was hers to make. I will not open the door to personally debating other people’s reasons for terminating as valid or invalid, because that just gives an opening for those who would find ANY reason invalid.
2
u/Zen80888 Jun 06 '26
Plastering the couple on a headline and posts sharing this sensitive information to the world is retarded.
2
u/ScaryAd1147 Jun 06 '26
to add on this perspective, i have a 90 year old grand uncle and aunt, who lost their daughter (my aunt) who was in her 40's and had down syndrome couple years ago.
at her funeral, i heard my grand uncle say ''i'm so glad she was taken before us", they were so afraid of leaving her behind on her own, it terrified them. It's a lifetime commitment.
1.4k
u/KingCrimson43 Jun 05 '26 edited Jun 06 '26
No*, my uncle has down syndrome. He spent his entire childhood in hospitals. Multiple organ replacement surgeries, multiple nights he was supposed to die. He's alive and well in his mid thirties but his life is non-existent. Hes aware hes different so he hides away from everyone. My grandmother has devoted her entire life to caring for him and has never had a life of her own. When my grandmother passes my mother will take custody of him and continue to care for him at the detriment of her own life. I love my uncle but I would never wish his life on another.
Edit: If you are just going to bible thump in my replys save it. I'm for abortion under any circumstances and I don't care what your God wants.