Should I hold my future for my BF?? Forum

[haus]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

Maybe they should.

As an older father myself, my wife became pregnant when I was 36, it is possible that this played a role in my child having autism. Although, it is not reasonably possible to draw a direct connection, it is something that I ponder from time to time. I love my daughter, and although I wish life were easier for her, I would not for one moment consider her not being in my life because of this challenge.

[AReasonableMan]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

Maybe they should.

As an older father myself, my wife became pregnant when I was 36, it is possible that this played a role in my child having autism. Although, it is not reasonably possible to draw a direct connection, it is something that I ponder from time to time. I love my daughter, and although I wish life were easier for her, I would not for one moment consider her not being in my life because of this challenge.

It is wonderful that you have built such a loving family. I don't think anyone's saying that children with such obstacles should not be born, but only that individuals should be aware of the risk before hand. For example, just because a movie is PG-13 doesn't mean that you can't let your 12 year old watch it without being present.

[ihenry]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

Maybe they should.

As an older father myself, my wife became pregnant when I was 36, it is possible that this played a role in my child having autism. Although, it is not reasonably possible to draw a direct connection, it is something that I ponder from time to time. I love my daughter, and although I wish life were easier for her, I would not for one moment consider her not being in my life because of this challenge.

It is wonderful that you have built such a loving family. I don't think anyone's saying that children with such obstacles should not be born, but only that individuals should be aware of the risk before hand. For example, just because a movie is PG-13 doesn't mean that you can't let your 12 year old watch it without being present.

I take a step further and believe that this is not entirely an individual's choice and that the government is within its power to encourage normal age mothers. Being disabled or "challenged", in one way or another, relies on and consumes much greater social welfare that other normal citizens have created through goodwill and hard work.

haus, I too congratulate you of having built a happy family that many with normal kids are envious of. But from a public policy perspective, I would not hesitate to argue that being biologically well off is a top priority to consider.

[A. Nony Mouse]

No, actually, in this country it is within the mother's (and father's) choice. It is entirely the individual's choice.

[El Pollito]

i'm not sure being poor growing up is the same thing as having downs syndrome

No, but having a 90% chance of having a fucked family may well be worse than a 3% chance of having Down's syndrome.

no it's definitely not

[jchiles]

i'm not sure being poor growing up is the same thing as having downs syndrome

No, but having a 90% chance of having a fucked family may well be worse than a 3% chance of having Down's syndrome.

no it's definitely not

I am confused and am probably reading this wrong, but is haus saying that being poor or having kids at 25 means there is a 90% chance of having a "fucked up family"?

[Maplesyrup]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

Maybe they should.

As an older father myself, my wife became pregnant when I was 36, it is possible that this played a role in my child having autism. Although, it is not reasonably possible to draw a direct connection, it is something that I ponder from time to time. I love my daughter, and although I wish life were easier for her, I would not for one moment consider her not being in my life because of this challenge.

It is wonderful that you have built such a loving family. I don't think anyone's saying that children with such obstacles should not be born, but only that individuals should be aware of the risk before hand. For example, just because a movie is PG-13 doesn't mean that you can't let your 12 year old watch it without being present.

I take a step further and believe that this is not entirely an individual's choice and that the government is within its power to encourage normal age mothers. Being disabled or "challenged", in one way or another, relies on and consumes much greater social welfare that other normal citizens have created through goodwill and hard work.

haus, I too congratulate you of having built a happy family that many with normal kids are envious of. But from a public policy perspective, I would not hesitate to argue that being biologically well off is a top priority to consider.

You should take a break from posting on this forum until your brain has had a chance to fully develop, four or five years should suffice.

[AReasonableMan]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

Maybe they should.

As an older father myself, my wife became pregnant when I was 36, it is possible that this played a role in my child having autism. Although, it is not reasonably possible to draw a direct connection, it is something that I ponder from time to time. I love my daughter, and although I wish life were easier for her, I would not for one moment consider her not being in my life because of this challenge.

It is wonderful that you have built such a loving family. I don't think anyone's saying that children with such obstacles should not be born, but only that individuals should be aware of the risk before hand. For example, just because a movie is PG-13 doesn't mean that you can't let your 12 year old watch it without being present.

I take a step further and believe that this is not entirely an individual's choice and that the government is within its power to encourage normal age mothers. Being disabled or "challenged", in one way or another, relies on and consumes much greater social welfare that other normal citizens have created through goodwill and hard work.

haus, I too congratulate you of having built a happy family that many with normal kids are envious of. But from a public policy perspective, I would not hesitate to argue that being biologically well off is a top priority to consider.

You should take a break from posting on this forum until your brain has had a chance to fully develop, four or five years should suffice.

He's basically citing Nazi ideology verbatim lol.

[ihenry]

What gets me is older fathers (also starting at the age of 35 for many medical problems) also present medical risks to offspring (including an increased risk of autism and schizophrenia, cleft palate, low birth weight, certain types of cancer, and a whole lot more) but no one spends their time wringing their hands and counseling 27-year-old fathers that they better delay their career and have a baby now so their baby won't have X condition.

Maybe they should.

As an older father myself, my wife became pregnant when I was 36, it is possible that this played a role in my child having autism. Although, it is not reasonably possible to draw a direct connection, it is something that I ponder from time to time. I love my daughter, and although I wish life were easier for her, I would not for one moment consider her not being in my life because of this challenge.

It is wonderful that you have built such a loving family. I don't think anyone's saying that children with such obstacles should not be born, but only that individuals should be aware of the risk before hand. For example, just because a movie is PG-13 doesn't mean that you can't let your 12 year old watch it without being present.

I take a step further and believe that this is not entirely an individual's choice and that the government is within its power to encourage normal age mothers. Being disabled or "challenged", in one way or another, relies on and consumes much greater social welfare that other normal citizens have created through goodwill and hard work.

haus, I too congratulate you of having built a happy family that many with normal kids are envious of. But from a public policy perspective, I would not hesitate to argue that being biologically well off is a top priority to consider.

You should take a break from posting on this forum until your brain has had a chance to fully develop, four or five years should suffice.

He's basically citing Nazi ideology verbatim lol.

The world is not black or white; go crack a book and develop your brains. Alternatively, keep entertaining among yourselves and I appreciate your arrogant, ignorant self-delusions.

And to some extent, Maplesyrup, you are right - this forum is too illogical and unreasonable (despite the ID of some poster) for me if represented by, well, ceetain people. Better put it off for a while.

[Maplesyrup]

If you want to live in a society that dictates the reproductive rights of its citizens maybe you would be better off staying in China as opposed to coming to America in order to go to law school.

[ihenry]

If you want to live in a society that dictates the reproductive rights of its citizens maybe you would be better off staying in China as opposed to coming to America in order to go to law school.

Well yes, I, along with the whole generation born in 90s, can be seen as the result of China's dictating reproductive rights because of one child per family policy. But speaking of this, you may want to consider the freedom of abortion where... you know.

And if you can't tell the difference between "encourage" and "prohibit otherwise", you need more English tutoring than I did. If you are not bothered to understand the rationale behind policies and blatantly see it as purely an attempt for government to assert their dominance, well, you are in arrogant, ignorant self-delusion named "persecution mania".

[AReasonableMan]

The world is not black or white; go crack a book and develop your brains. Alternatively, keep entertaining among yourselves and I appreciate your arrogant, ignorant self-delusions.

And to some extent, Maplesyrup, you are right - this forum is too illogical and unreasonable (despite the ID of some poster) for me if represented by, well, ceetain people. Better put it off for a while.

Maybe you should crack open a book. What you're arguing isn't some original and unique thought. It was a developing sociopolitical argument at the turn of the 20th century, was essentially the Supreme Court's conclusion in Buck v. Bell and was later applied to a much larger extent by the National Socialists in Germany. For what it's worth, it's impossible to argue the 8th amendment of the Constitution would permit the policy you're advocating so unless you're tossing out your citizenship card, you should stop defending it.

Your entire argument basically relies on the assumption that an individual cannot have autism or downs syndrome and create more resources than they take. This really isn't true. Who contributes more to America: the person who defaults on $300k of tax payer backed student loans and occupies Wall Street, or the person who gets no such resources and works 50 hours a week cleaning the office building floors so that more work could get done?

[ihenry]

The world is not black or white; go crack a book and develop your brains. Alternatively, keep entertaining among yourselves and I appreciate your arrogant, ignorant self-delusions.

And to some extent, Maplesyrup, you are right - this forum is too illogical and unreasonable (despite the ID of some poster) for me if represented by, well, ceetain people. Better put it off for a while.

Maybe you should crack open a book. What you're arguing isn't some original and unique thought. It was a developing sociopolitical argument at the turn of the 20th century, was essentially the Supreme Court's conclusion in Buck v. Bell and was later applied to a much larger extent by the National Socialists in Germany. For what it's worth, it's impossible to argue the 8th amendment of the Constitution would permit the policy you're advocating so unless you're tossing out your citizenship card, you should stop defending it.

Your entire argument basically relies on the assumption that an individual cannot have autism or downs syndrome and create more resources than they take. This really isn't true. Who contributes more to America: the person who defaults on $300k of tax payer backed student loans and occupies Wall Street, or the person who gets no such resources and works 50 hours a week cleaning the office building floors so that more work could get done?

I never said it is any kind of original or unique sort of argument. Period. And I'm not going to argue with you on this matter because you indeed know much more about Constitution than me at this point. But just because it is applied, to a much greater extent, by Nazism for homicide does not mean it loses its value or its contrary is always true. It's still simplistic black-and-white.

Your identification of my assumption is wrong though. My real assumption is on average, kids with autism or down syndrome consumes more social welfare and are less likely to produce the same social value than kids without them. You are making a straw man.

[fats provolone]

the eugenics double down. Nice

[AReasonableMan]

The world is not black or white; go crack a book and develop your brains. Alternatively, keep entertaining among yourselves and I appreciate your arrogant, ignorant self-delusions.

And to some extent, Maplesyrup, you are right - this forum is too illogical and unreasonable (despite the ID of some poster) for me if represented by, well, ceetain people. Better put it off for a while.

Maybe you should crack open a book. What you're arguing isn't some original and unique thought. It was a developing sociopolitical argument at the turn of the 20th century, was essentially the Supreme Court's conclusion in Buck v. Bell and was later applied to a much larger extent by the National Socialists in Germany. For what it's worth, it's impossible to argue the 8th amendment of the Constitution would permit the policy you're advocating so unless you're tossing out your citizenship card, you should stop defending it.

Your entire argument basically relies on the assumption that an individual cannot have autism or downs syndrome and create more resources than they take. This really isn't true. Who contributes more to America: the person who defaults on $300k of tax payer backed student loans and occupies Wall Street, or the person who gets no such resources and works 50 hours a week cleaning the office building floors so that more work could get done?

I never said it is any kind of original or unique sort of argument. Period. And I'm not going to argue with you on this matter because you indeed know much more about Constitution than me at this point.

Your identification of my assumption is wrong though. My real assumption is on average, kids with autism or down syndrome consumes more social welfare and are less likely to produce the same social value than kids without them.

1.) So where do you draw the line then? Babies who stay in the womb for a full 9 month are likelier to be earners than babies who are born premature. Why not apply it to every premature baby, every baby born to a family below the top 25% income mark, etc.

2.) Is there not an inherent value in fostering a society that protects those who cannot protect themselves as opposed to one who tries to eliminate them? Even the Nazis started pulling back on exterminating the mentally unfit, because they realized most of the soldiers involved started becoming mentally ill due to their participation in the slaughter. Part of staying psychologically healthy and capable of producing is maintaining a healthy soul. There's a reason why Maslow lists "self-actualization" as the highest psychological state any human being can reach.

[ihenry]

The world is not black or white; go crack a book and develop your brains. Alternatively, keep entertaining among yourselves and I appreciate your arrogant, ignorant self-delusions.

And to some extent, Maplesyrup, you are right - this forum is too illogical and unreasonable (despite the ID of some poster) for me if represented by, well, ceetain people. Better put it off for a while.

Maybe you should crack open a book. What you're arguing isn't some original and unique thought. It was a developing sociopolitical argument at the turn of the 20th century, was essentially the Supreme Court's conclusion in Buck v. Bell and was later applied to a much larger extent by the National Socialists in Germany. For what it's worth, it's impossible to argue the 8th amendment of the Constitution would permit the policy you're advocating so unless you're tossing out your citizenship card, you should stop defending it.

Your entire argument basically relies on the assumption that an individual cannot have autism or downs syndrome and create more resources than they take. This really isn't true. Who contributes more to America: the person who defaults on $300k of tax payer backed student loans and occupies Wall Street, or the person who gets no such resources and works 50 hours a week cleaning the office building floors so that more work could get done?

I never said it is any kind of original or unique sort of argument. Period. And I'm not going to argue with you on this matter because you indeed know much more about Constitution than me at this point.

Your identification of my assumption is wrong though. My real assumption is on average, kids with autism or down syndrome consumes more social welfare and are less likely to produce the same social value than kids without them.

1.) So where do you draw the line then? Babies who stay in the womb for a full 9 month are likelier to be earners than babies who are born premature. Why not apply it to every premature baby, every baby born to a family below the top 25% income mark, etc.

2.) Is there not an inherent value in fostering a society that protects those who cannot protect themselves as opposed to one who tries to eliminate them? Even the Nazis started pulling back on exterminating the mentally unfit, because they realized most of the soldiers involved started becoming mentally ill due to their participation in the slaughter. Part of staying psychologically healthy and capable of producing is maintaining a healthy soul. There's a reason why Maslow lists "self-actualization" as the highest psychological state any human being can reach.

1. It seems from your previous post you have already acknowledged that having Down Syndrome should not be equated with being born in a less financially advantageous family. The former requires MUCH greater medical, educational and other public resources.

2. You are again misinterpreting my argument. I never said we should not protect those who cannot protect themselves -- even if you fully adhere to medical procedures there is still possibility of genetic disease. That's why we should go great lengths and provide the best welfare possible to them, which actually echoes my first point -- we cannot afford having too many them if they can be reduced (or be kept from soaring) if prospective mothers are advised to follow medical common sense.

[ihenry]

the eugenics double down. Nice

Throwing a hat is really easy, huh? My scope of "encouragement" includes school and public education, providing subsidy for normal aged mothers, etc. It's not that when you reach 40 you get your womb removed mandatorily.

[A. Nony Mouse]

We don't need to encourage anyone in this country to have kids. You're also making some awful judgments about the worth of people with autism and Down syndrome.

You really do need to understand more about American constitutional history before you start making these arguments.

And really, do you think people don't know/get told about these risks? What problem are you going in search of here?

[AReasonableMan]

The world is not black or white; go crack a book and develop your brains. Alternatively, keep entertaining among yourselves and I appreciate your arrogant, ignorant self-delusions.

And to some extent, Maplesyrup, you are right - this forum is too illogical and unreasonable (despite the ID of some poster) for me if represented by, well, ceetain people. Better put it off for a while.

Maybe you should crack open a book. What you're arguing isn't some original and unique thought. It was a developing sociopolitical argument at the turn of the 20th century, was essentially the Supreme Court's conclusion in Buck v. Bell and was later applied to a much larger extent by the National Socialists in Germany. For what it's worth, it's impossible to argue the 8th amendment of the Constitution would permit the policy you're advocating so unless you're tossing out your citizenship card, you should stop defending it.

Your entire argument basically relies on the assumption that an individual cannot have autism or downs syndrome and create more resources than they take. This really isn't true. Who contributes more to America: the person who defaults on $300k of tax payer backed student loans and occupies Wall Street, or the person who gets no such resources and works 50 hours a week cleaning the office building floors so that more work could get done?

I never said it is any kind of original or unique sort of argument. Period. And I'm not going to argue with you on this matter because you indeed know much more about Constitution than me at this point.

Your identification of my assumption is wrong though. My real assumption is on average, kids with autism or down syndrome consumes more social welfare and are less likely to produce the same social value than kids without them.

1.) So where do you draw the line then? Babies who stay in the womb for a full 9 month are likelier to be earners than babies who are born premature. Why not apply it to every premature baby, every baby born to a family below the top 25% income mark, etc.

2.) Is there not an inherent value in fostering a society that protects those who cannot protect themselves as opposed to one who tries to eliminate them? Even the Nazis started pulling back on exterminating the mentally unfit, because they realized most of the soldiers involved started becoming mentally ill due to their participation in the slaughter. Part of staying psychologically healthy and capable of producing is maintaining a healthy soul. There's a reason why Maslow lists "self-actualization" as the highest psychological state any human being can reach.

1. It seems from your previous post you have already acknowledged that having Down Syndrome should not be equated with being born in a less financially advantageous family. The former requires MUCH greater medical, educational and other public resources.

2. You are again misinterpreting my argument. I never said we should not protect those who cannot protect themselves -- even if you fully adhere to medical procedures there is still possibility of genetic disease. That's why we should go great lengths and provide the best welfare possible to them, which actually echoes my first point -- we cannot afford having too many them if they can be reduced (or be kept from soaring) if prospective mothers are advised to follow medical common sense.

In my experience working with this population, an individual with down syndrome with a 50 IQ born in Soviet Russia was generally better able to take care of themselves and handle work placement than an individual with down syndrome with a 50 IQ born in the United States. It's not that Communism is better, but that America tends to over-coddle those with impairments which precludes them from maximizing their potential.

Of course, it could also be that surviving in a country like Russia where they had little to no assistance required certain personality traits that cannot be measured by a test or that taking a test in their second language artificially deflated their IQ.

[ihenry]

We don't need to encourage anyone in this country to have kids. You're also making some awful judgments about the worth of people with autism and Down syndrome.

You really do need to understand more about American constitutional history before you start making these arguments.

And really, do you think people don't know/get told about these risks? What problem are you going in search of here?

I'm not making any judgment regarding their personal worthiness. If you anyhow think the fact that they need more social assistance and have more inconvenience during their lives diminishes their personal worthiness, then I guess the wrong is in you not me.

I have nothing to say or refute regarding your second and third point though.

[A. Nony Mouse]

You're basically suggesting we should have fewer of them. That seems to suggest you don't consider them worth the cost. If I misinterpreted you I don't think I'm alone on that, but I apologize if you weren't in fact suggesting we should have fewer of them.

[ihenry]

You're basically suggesting we should have fewer of them. That seems to suggest you don't consider them worth the cost. If I misinterpreted you I don't think I'm alone on that, but I apologize if you weren't in fact suggesting we should have fewer of them.

I am suggesting so. Sorry. They are as valuable as a normal human being, but I prefer fewer of them, for themselves, family and society.

If you think this is farfetched and I am in no position to represent themselves, their family or society, I don't think we have more to argue either.

[A. Nony Mouse]

For themselves and their families is pretty harsh. I know a number of people with autistic kids/kids with Down syndrome and that kind of statement generally upsets them a lot.

[ihenry]

For themselves and their families is pretty harsh. I know a number of people with autistic kids/kids with Down syndrome and that kind of statement generally upsets them a lot.

I mean the future "they" not current "they". If my statement upsets anyone I apologize. All these are not targeted at current kids or inevitable cases.

[AReasonableMan]

You're basically suggesting we should have fewer of them. That seems to suggest you don't consider them worth the cost. If I misinterpreted you I don't think I'm alone on that, but I apologize if you weren't in fact suggesting we should have fewer of them.

I am suggesting so. Sorry. They are as valuable as a normal human being, but I prefer fewer of them, for themselves, family and society.

If you think this is farfetched and I am in no position to represent themselves, their family or society, I don't think we have more to argue either.

I prefer fewer homeless people on the subway for society. Last night I was sandwiched in by one gentleman not wearing shoes or socks and one with no pants. I was dosing off, and the smell gave me an energy drink type punch.