This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
An influencer couple announced that they aborted their pregnancy because the fetus had Down syndrome. This upset a lot of people including some fine congressmen.
However, it's actually very common. Screening for genetic disorders is generally performed between 10 and 20 weeks, giving plenty of time for a reasonably early choice. "As a result of these elective terminations in the U.S., there was a 37% reduction in the numbers of babies with Down syndrome born in 2018. This means that in recent years there were 37% fewer babies with Down syndrome than could have been born". In Iceland, almost all such diagnosed pregnancies are aborted after testing.
People with Down syndrome are clearly generally capable of living "happy" lives. They have the equivalent intelligence of an 8 to 9 year old. Most 8 to 9 year olds seem happy enough to me, and it would not be a horrible curse to live decades in such a condition. Perhaps we might ask if such a life is fulfilling, but a young child can't comprehend what that means; as well ask your dog if he's fulfilled by sniffing butts and digging holes.
For the caretakers of course, life may not be so rosy. Taking care of a small child indefinitely, knowing all of the joys and sorrows of adulthood that they will never experience, does not sound fulfilling, to say nothing of the physical and monetary toll. It's therefore unsurprising that most parents choose not to condemn themselves to such a future.
God in His infinite wisdom creates babies with far worse afflictions. Most people would agree that it is ethical, perhaps mandatory, to abort nonviable children who will live only hours in agonizing pain after birth. Down syndrome, as a patently survivable condition, lies on the edge of this boundary.
I remain frustrated that so much of the abortion debate ignores adoption as a possibility. It's so ignored that OP might think it's an unrelated point, but without addressing adoption, statements like...
are a red herring to me, at least for the USA.
(In all 50 states (and possibly in most non-USAmerican countries as well -IDK), there are Safe Haven laws allowing no-penalty surrender of newborns.)
I want to say this with no offense to OP, because what I'm complaining about is so common.
Adoption would be a realistic solution if there wasn't an oversupply and under demand for adoptable foster kids as is. And considering these severely disabled children that require constant dedication for the rest of their lifetime would be far less wanted than even the typical foster child.
Depends what your threshold for 'adoptable' is. The internet tells me there are 36 couples for every child available for adoption so evidently the market must be clearing at a pretty low 'price'. I assume downs kids would be in less demand, but with 36 couples per child, beggars can't be choosers.
36 couples who have qualified and passed the associated screening? Like it wouldn't shock me if there was a CRM with 36 expressions of interest for a healthy infant adoption but my understanding of adoption is that it's a long and messy process
I find the rules about adoption of both children and pets insane. Anyone is free to fuck themselves a child or buy a puppy with no screening at all, but adoption? No, that's different, you'll have to jump through more hoops than a circus poodle just to get a chance to adopt. The only barrier to clear should be "is your house than a state orphanage/a cage in a shelter?", which isn't exactly high.
How big are the barriers to pet adoption? I know I had one of a couple childhood dogs that was adopted and it didn't seem like my parents had to comply with any notably more arduous process?
Where I live, the Humane Society requires a screening questionnaire and $200 for adult dog (extra $50 for a puppy). Other pet adoptions are similar. I know a bunch of people who got their dogs with reduced or waived fee because someone was doing a charity promotion to subsidize adoption.
Most of the animals in the rescue system are fostered out. Only the most un-fosterable get kept in the shelter. When we went to pick a dog, they offered us binders full of dogs to peruse. We asked to see the dogs they have on premises, and got a tour of the solitary-confinement cages with giant snarling beasts throwing themselves at the plexiglass.
The Humane Society used to put down un-adoptable animals. They stopped doing that around the turn of this century. Some people who had to get rid of their dog would release it rather that give it to a rescue shelter, figuring that at least this way the dog had a chance at life. The Humane Society's goal is to reduce strays, especially the dangerous kind. Housing some unruly monsters is worth the price of having a reputation of never killing the animal except in medical need.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The process may well be long and messy, but a ratio of 36 couples to one child is not a shortage of parents or an oversupply of kids.
Even overseas adoption has dropped to almost nothing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link