Killing a child, or any conscious being willing to live, cannot be compared to terminating a pregnancy at a point where the embryo is just a blob of cells with no global survival instinct and consciousness whatsoever (just basic biochemistry-powered defensive reactions at cellular level).

It's ridiculous making such mental gymnastics to stretch this article in order to blame "the West".

At what point is a child imbued with consciousness and a will to live? Who should be responsible for that determination?

While the line drawing fallacy certainly comes into play here, one can with some confidence say that /before a single neuron is formed/ is most certainly a safe spot to point at and say “not yet.”

I didn't quickly find a definitive answer about the time the first neuron forms, but some brief searching around seems to indicate the neurons are already assembling into complex structures before 5 weeks.

So it seems like development of the first neuron would be well before that, and not a very practically-useful line.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_human_bra...

The mother.

Until what age? Birth? 1 year old? 18? 80?

I used the phrase "the West" because the practice happens in the US, but is more common in Europe.

The analogy stems from an instrumentalist view of what it means to be human and the expectations parents have that children are for their own pleasure. IE: a down syndrome life isn't worth living because such a person can't be a meaningfully productive member of society, or a down syndrome child isn't one I want to have because of the long-term burden I will have to bear.

It's not mental gymnastics to make that connection. The only reason it isn't obvious is because abortion is a taboo subject.

FWIW a 10 week old fetus is a lot more than a "blob of cells": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sivegxcp2Bk .

While a 10 week old fetus is not a blob of cells, having some major structures forming and hinting at their definitive shape, the brain is still very little more than autonomic functions.

Also, there are a multitude of reasons why a couple would want to terminate a pregnancy for a genetic anomaly, from the social burden to the financial burden or the notion that their child with a congenital condition will not lead a life they deem worth living. At this point, when the fetus is not a person just yet, it's their choice to make.

Would you have a child knowing they'd be condemned to a premature and painful death?

At least be honest that you are implicitly stating an opinion that abortion at 9-15 weeks is equivalent to infanticide.

I actually do see a parallel, but it's the opposite of the one you're talking about. Refusing to abort a fetus with Down syndrome comes from the same sort of squeamishness and relativism as refusing to condemn an indigenous culture. It is condemning people to suffer out of some misguided attempt to be understanding and compassionate. It is an overreaction to horrors of the past. It is combating arrogance and elitism with relativism. Refusing to say that people with Down syndrome shouldn't be born is similar to refusing to admit that some cultures should be destroyed.

Maybe that's a stretch.

But you actually bring up a good alternative: abortion. We can easily detect some of these situations (single mothers, twins, and certain disabilities) early in pregnancy. Maybe offering abortions would discourage killing children?

It's easier to judge small tribes as being backwards than to look at ourselves and see the backwardness, and that we're really not any different.

Just how on Earth have you inferred this statement from the OP or from the parent's comment? Have you read either?

The HN guidelines [0] are actually a remarkably good set of principles for online discussion of challenging topics.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something ... Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that.” ... Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

The standard of care each of us puts into each of our own responses is what makes HN-quality conversations possible or impossible.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html