We’ve essentially only had a few decades when it was not possible to identify these conditions in the womb and society was able and willing to support these individuals and allow them to live on.
Realistically in the past these children would’ve been killed by their parents either directly or through abandonment and those who weren’t often didn’t survive through adulthood especially once their parents have passed.
Down and autism today seems so much more common simply because these individuals get the chance to live to and through adulthood.
These conditions don’t only affect people’s mental abilities they have a plethora of other health issues too.
75% of people with Down syndrome that die die from respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses as they suffer from immune system issues and frequent inflammation, with the current pandemic a lot of them have died because if they do get infected they are severely affected.
https://err.ersjournals.com/content/26/143/160098
Before modern medicine and the flu jab many of them wouldn’t survive a harsh flu season...
Heck before we knew what Down syndrome was most of them probably perished as infants from infections that healthy individuals would just shrug off.
It's worth noting that, to many people, someone that isn't born yet isn't a "who" at all yet. That is, in my opinion, why we see such a large gap in opinion between "pro life" and "pro choice"; (many of) the former think of it as killing, (many of) the later don't see the unborn as a distinct life, just another part of the mother. That disconnect leads to a lot of talking past each other.
The box was opened 40 years ago at least, as a fetus I was screened due to a down syndrome older sister.
> This is far from a cure to genetic diseases it is removal of diseased individuals from the population
100% of down syndrome men and 30-50% of women are infertile. Throw in dating challenges and issue regarding consent and theses genes aren't going to last long anyway.
I don't think "we should decrease the number of people born homosexual" is a morally defensible position, but decreasing incidence of Down Syndrome, or autism, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, are absolutely morally defensible positions, and in fact, are regularly done -- people everywhere socially discourage pregnant mothers from drinking alcohol, for example, and I don't think the discouraging third-parties are the ones who are in the wrong in that situation.
I think having a child AT ALL, regardless of any other concerns, is an individual decision that should be made by mature, capable adults. I don't think it's necessarily a "morally defensible position" to have a third kid when you're struggling to take care of the previous two just because you belong to a religion that thinks prophylactics are immoral, and I would never, for example, judge a potential parent who decided to terminate a pregnancy because they were told it is unlikely their child will be born alive, and even if it is, would be unlikely to live for long.
Nowhere did I claim that it is reasonable to "judge a potential parent who decided to terminate a pregnancy because they were told it is unlikely their child will be born alive" (in fact, I'm Polish and am horrified at the new law recently passed in the country in which I was born, which specifically intends to do away with this specific act).
I think it's fine if you can't support another kid because you can't support another kid. I think it's fine if your kid won't live because your kid won't live.
But people with Down Syndrome and autism do live. And I think we should strongly consider the morality of the situation before going down that road. If someone is already struggling enough as it is keeping their lives together and finds out that this is the case, I would at least say it's more defensible than otherwise, because it is indeed harder to provide for some kids. But all kids are hard to provide for in their own way, and perhaps that person shouldn't be having kids anyway if that's the case. After all, we can't ever test for everything; it's entirely possible still to have a kid with something that can't be tested.
And people do discourage pregnant mothers from drinking, because that's an easy step to take to ensure higher chances of a happy and healthy baby. It's a false equivalence to compare that to terminating a potential life.
I won't judge people for their decisions. They have their reasons for doing what they'll do. And I'm absolutely unabashedly pro-choice. And of course I would have a hard time dealing with hearing that my kid will end up having Downs or whatever. But I think there is an aspect of morality to consider here, and the plain-and-simple "we should decrease the number of people born with Down Syndrome", presented without exception (as you put it, "absolutely"), does not fit my view. It's too close to eugenics for my taste.
Why would this be different than planed parenthood?
I'm also not following that we should draw the line here just because it can be missused when you draw the line further away.
I would even argue, that it is our duty to do tests as we have the means and therefore the responsibility to do so. We do know that nature is not perfect. We can't control everything before like the pill and everything while it grows (supplements, no work etc.) and after birth by helping babies which came out to early or operations etc.
Why would we control everything but not this specific aspect?
The general notion quite globally is, that an abortion before 3month is ethical okay for us as a society and this timeframe was not choosen through some random events. It probably evolved.
Those are organizations in charge of the trolley lever. How about putting the would-be parents in charge and keeping the organizations out?