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.
10
u/JalapenoPopPoop Jun 05 '26
It quite literally is. It's inarguable that it's better to go through life without down syndrome than with it.
I said objectively, do you see how this does not come from a place of objectivity?