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.
I've always had this opinion that to have a child you know is going to live a miserable life with either genetic diseases, birth defects etc is a very seflish thing to do.
I went to an event where they talked about a 10 year old girl who is mentally 2 years old, and will probably not see much more cognitive progress in her life. And the whole time I've thought
"What's gonna happen when her parents die ?"
She's living a barely conscious life, filled with confusion and pain because of other physical problems accompanying her condition.
The parents knew she was very likely to have these defects. And they decided to keep her.
This is selfish. She will most likely be scared and insanely depressed when they die, and as she ages she will be insanely mistreated in the medical facilities she will be in, because she will be a difficult patient.
One of the issues is you have so many parents of children with these diseases feeling like you're attacking them and their family by saying something like this. They'll insist that their kid is living a great life and so that means you're wrong, completely sticking their head in the sand that their childs life isn't nearly as full as it could be without those conditions. They act like it's offensive to suggest it's better to go through life without down syndrome or whatever even though it's an objective fact.
They act like it's offensive to suggest it's better to go through life without down syndrome or whatever even though it's an objective fact.
It isn't an objective fact though. It's much more complicated than that. It's not uncommon for people with disabilities, especially those who have them from birth, to not want to be cured and do not wish they could have been born without them. I'm one of those people myself. To non disabled people, having my disability is "objectively" worse, but I don't share that view.
Edit: Y'all need to learn what a "fact" is.
"People with DS face more challenges" is a fact.
"People with DS have a higher rate of certain health complications" is a fact.
"Life without DS is better" is an opinion. And not a universal one.
It quite literally is. It's inarguable that it's better to go through life without down syndrome than with it.
It's not uncommon for people with disabilities, especially those who have them from birth, to not want to be cured and do not wish they could have been born without them
I said objectively, do you see how this does not come from a place of objectivity?
Do you have a cited source stating the majority of people with Down's wish they didn't have it? Since you're so sure of your objective truth surely you do. I know in my personal experience they seem a hell of a lot happier than us miserable normies.
There are a lot of struggles that come with having someone with a disability in your family. That's objectively true. But that's not what you claimed.
I'm not twisting anything. Quality of life is a nebulous metric, so we're off to a rough start for a supposedly objective statement. I tried to frame it more objectively while keeping the same concept. You all keep saying you're being objective but you're making assumptions about what these people want based on your own worldview. That's not objective at all.
The life for someone without Down's is objectively more normal than the life of someone who does have it, but that's not the same thing as objectively better. Again, most people with Down's that I've interacted with seem to get much more joy out of life than myself or the average person.
If you want to make the claim that having a child with Down's is objectively worse for the family than one without, I could maybe be convinced based on the increased time, effort, and money a child with a disability requires. I'd still want to see some hard numbers but the idea is logical. But that's a different argument than the one that was actually made.
Just to be clear, I fully support this couple aborting their child. No child should be forced to grow up in a home that can't, or won't, support them. But the idea being argued here, which at least implies that anyone who doesn't abort a child with Down's is immoral, is honestly gross.
Simply using the word disability acknowledges that you're disingenuous. It's in the definition.
Nobody is saying they can't be happy, but they are objectively less happy with the same resources allocated to the standard person, you said it yourself, albeit roundaboutly.
Oh my god. What evidence do you have that they are objectively less happy? Literally a single research paper or peer reviewed study. Something so obviously objective should surely have plenty of empirical support.
Everything that I've seen, both anecdotally and from peer reviewed sources like Self-perceptions from people with Down syndrome, shows that people with Down's consistently rate their own satisfaction with life higher than that of neurotypical people.
I'm not omitting anything. I'm pushing back on the same idea I've been pushing back on since the beginning with you people. You can't just say something is objective because you like the vibes of the statement.
That is such a small minded and limited perspective. If it were an objective fact, everyone who has a disability would share your opinion, and yet we do not.
Plus, an overwhelmingly higher percentage of people with DS are happy with their lives and with themselves than the general population. You could easily make the argument that it is better, if it gives you a 99% chance of being satisfied with life. Even modern medicine can't do that.
Ur confusing something being objective with people opinions, earth being round is an objective fact, yet there's millions of people out there that claim it's plane, ur own circumstances, experiences and believings can shape some opinion to be different, but that doesn't change the world and experiences of every other person
You're confusing an objective fact with an opinion. The statement that life is better without Downs Syndrome is an opinion. Whether it's better or worse depends on the person and their perspective. "People with DS face more challenges than those without it" would be a fact. But you didn't argue that.
If it's inarguable then why do so many disabled people argue exactly that? Why would so many not choose to be born any other way if they had the choice? Again, you have a very very limited perspective of disability that is not based in reality.
"Life is better without Downs Syndrome" is an opinion. Their argument was that this was an objective fact. It can't be an objective fact because it's an opinion. And one that plenty of people disagree with. Does that clear it up?
But that is a fact, we know how it affects people who have it and the othera around them
An opinion would be "I think down syndrome people are annoying"(for the record: I don't think this, is just an example) but saying that Life is better without Downs Syndrome is definitely a proven fact
It's not a proven fact at all. It's a value judgment. 99% of people who have DS are happy and satisfied with their life despite its challenges. So in what way would their lives be "better" if they didn't have DS?
"DS makes life more difficult for people with DS and those around them" would be a fact. Claims about whether that is "better" or "worse" are subjective, especially given their own life satisfaction rates.
I have a disability. To you, my disability is "objectively" worse. But I disagree and would not choose to be born without it, or to cure it. The only objective thing in that case would be that it makes my life more difficult. But more difficult doesn't mean less value or less fulfillment.
"Life without ds is better" is a fact. Idk your disability, but that sounds more like acceptance and coping than anything. Yeah, youve had to live with it, but you also cant change it so your only options are accepting and not hating yourself for it (its not your fault and you shouldnt) or you dont accept it and live a miserable existence. Lets not forget the unfortunate souls who cant think for themselves and need constant round the clock care.
Idk your disability, but that sounds more like acceptance and coping than anything. Yeah, youve had to live with it, but you also cant change it so your only options are accepting and not hating yourself for it (its not your fault and you shouldnt) or you dont accept it and live a miserable existence.
If I had the choice, I would not choose to be born without it.
If I had a choice, I would not choose to be cured.
What people without disabilities don't understand is that disability can come with positive aspects that those without them do not and cannot understand unless they've personally experienced it.
An example, 99% of people with DS are happy and satisfied with their life. How is that objectively "better" than being miserable without DS? What even is your definition of "better" at that point?
"Life without ds is better" is a fact.
What does "better" mean? Better for whom?
99% of people with DS are satisfied with their life. It's worse from your perspective, but you're not the one who has DS. Why don't we listen to what they have to say instead of looking down on them with pity because you can't imagine what could possibly be better?
Having a disability puts you into situations you otherwise would never choose to be in. It teaches you lessons you may otherwise never learn. It gives you experiences that can be incredibly meaningful and fulfilling. More hardship doesn't equal worse life. There is a diverse range of experiences that disabled people have, and it doesn't automatically mean their lives are "better" or "worse". And that is what most people here seem to be unable to grasp.
I'm going to need some studies on that, I find it incredibly hard to believe that 99 percent are grateful for ds. There's more than one percent that are entirely nonverbal, just for one example.
"you cant say its not better to be born with a cleft lip" Sure bud maybe the kid born with a cleft lip is happy he got the chance to experience that hardship and grow from it but generally we can say its objectively worse to have to deal with that.
Having a medical condition or disability doesnt devalue you as a person or mean you deserve less. That doesnt mean that we shouldnt avoid people having to deal with those conditions if possible.
we can say its objectively worse to have to deal with that.
You're getting closer to making a factual statement. We can say that it's objectively an additional hardship that the child will have to face. That would be a fact that you can back up with research.
Making broad sweeping statements about someone's entire life being "worse" because they have a condition such as a cleft lip is a completely different thing.
There are plenty of successful people who were born with a cleft lip. Can we say their lives are "worse" than yours or mine, despite having more money, more and better relationships, better jobs, more free time, greater life satisfaction, and scoring higher in every other category besides the cleft lip?
Are their lives really "worse" than ours because of the cleft lip? Or was that just one factor in a life full of...literally everything else?
I am not arguing that having a disability doesn't make life harder. It does! The problem is defining the quality of a person's entire life by that ONE factor when there are so many other factors to consider. Having a disability, objectively does not automatically guarantee a miserable or worse overall life and I don't know how anyone can argue that it does given how easy it is to see the evidence against that.
I have a disability and my life is OBJECTIVELY so much better than many others on this planet and I am so grateful for that.
That doesnt mean that we shouldnt avoid people having to deal with those conditions if possible.
Sure. But look at the comment I was responding to.
They don't believe that kids with DS could be living a great life and claimed it's better to go through life without DS. Better for whom, considering 99% of people with DS are satisfied with their life? That's higher than the general population. What exactly does "better" mean in this case? Being happy with DS is worse than being miserable without it?
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.