As soon as someone starts ascribing towards a "normal" and using the pronoun "them", warning bells should go berserk.
We should not let compassion for these people obstruct some basic facts. My only consideration would be the potential risks and side effects that are to be expected for any medical intervention. But if we were expecting a child that was diagnosed with Down Syndrome, I would not hesitate for a second to give this child the chance for a normal life. And us parents the chance for normal parenthood.
Please cite your sources and show your work.
My child with Down syndrome is a giant pain in my ass, I worry about him constantly, and there are days where I wonder “why me?”
The same is 100% true about my typically-developing daughter.
Down syndrome has nothing to do with parent outcomes. Society refusing to actually provide support is the issue here.
Misquote. The statement was "What's better for them should be the overriding concern and that's to have a normal development".
I’m pretty sure most scientists would consider being able to communicate effectively with your own species, “normal”. Regardless of what animal you are. Just like it’s normal to have 5 fingers as a human. But some humans have more or less. That’s just…life.
No need to be unnecessarily sensationalist. I do agree that using the term “normal” should give someone pause. But warning bells? Depends on context…like everything in life. :)
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
p.s. This isn't a response to this particular comment, but to the account's overall pattern of behavior, which is way over the line.
yes, naturally, almost every post I make on my throwaways is something political, in response to existing political comments or submissions, which are evidently allowed.
using throwaways to protect oneself from the terminally online crowd is pretty much a necessity in the current year, unless your values and opinions are firmly in the middle of the Overton window. and even then, there are many opinions that were universally okay 15 years ago can be used against you now. I've seen it happen time and time again.
This makes me think that you might not have taken in the essential bit, which is the pattern of an account's behavior. Was that not clear from the above?
In case it helps, the issue is that we don't want accounts to use HN primarily for arguing about politics or ideology. That's an important test and has proven to be one of the more reliable ones, in terms of whether an account is using HN as intended or not (https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...)
Separately from that, looking at https://news.ycombinator.com/posts?id=123yawaworht456, I see other reasons to ban such an account—you've routinely been breaking HN's rules in plenty of ways which have nothing to do with your specific opinions. If your motivation is simply to protect yourself, as you say here, then I wonder why that would be.