Blood test for Downs creates ethical debate

[manifold]

Oh that's just mani throwing out a convoluted summation in an attempt to throw the civil debate off track.

convoluted?

Sorry sis, not the case this time. I've discussed this very topic many many times and several, if not most pro-choicers suddenly have a problem with supporting a woman's choice to abort when the reason is a birth defect. Once even asked about the ethics of aborting a fetus if it could be pre-determined that the child would be homosexual. You should've seen them all lose their shit.

Alright, I'll take your word for it.....this time.

I appreciate it.

The moral argument they typically weave on the subject goes something like this: If a woman doesn't want any child, period, then abortion is ok. But if she intends to get pregnant, and does so, then there should be a no-return policy regardless of the defects.

 

[Anachronism]

I think all women should have a test like this to make better informed choices about aborting or keeping a baby.

I also feel that once a diagnosis like this is made that the parents know up front that they will be totally financially responsible for that child for the rest of its life.

Okay. I want to make sure I have this right..... MY parents (lower middle class in 1974) should have aborted me because they might not have been able to afford all of my medical care themselves if my condition had turned out to be as bad as it could have been?

Do I have that right, syrenn? I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something here.

Oh, and by the way, they both had family members who stepped up and offered to help defer any costs related to my issues after I was born. Thankfully that didn't end up being necessary. But it would seem to me that your viewpoint here is that anyone who is in the lower strata of the economic world should not be allowed to have a child who might require assistance.

 

[R.D.]

I appreciate it.

The moral argument they typically weave on the subject goes something like this: If a woman doesn't want any child, period, then abortion is ok. But if she intends to get pregnant, and does so, then there should be a no-return policy regardless of the defects.

That's new to me

On both sides of the issue I don't understand any grey area

 

[California Girl]

and when the parents die and the child can't take care of itself?

Is that a disservice to the child or society??

both probably. though i added to my post after you quoted.

So it's only parents that care for a child? And when that child grows up and can function perfectly well on its own? Those people are better off dead?

I don't get it. Really, I don't. We claim to be a society in which we should 'stay out of other people's business' and yet here we are, conservatives and liberals, trying to tell the rest of us that we have no right to choose life for DS kids.

I find it sickening that other people think it's okay to decide who lives and who dies.

 

[editec]

Seems to me that the woman being asked to take a child to term is the ONE AND ONLY person who gets to decide.

It's her body, after all. She's taking all the risks, and she is also the person most likely responsible for the child's welfare for the next 18+ years, as well.

If you are opposed to abortions, then by all means don't have one.

As to anybody else's reproductive decisions?

They are NOT your or my business.

When it no longer takes two to create that life, you'll have a valid point. But, right now (in 2011) it still takes a man and a woman. That man has as much say as that woman. It's his kid too.

When that man is prepared to take that fetus into his body and bring it to term, then I'm with you 100%.

Until that happens?

It the WOMAN'S body, ergo it's HER decision what to do with it.

And before you start weaping about that unborn child, do be prepared for to tell you that "child" doesn't have the right to become part of humanity if the woman carrying it doesn't want it.

You think that makes me immoral or heartless?

I think taking any other position relegates women to nothing more than BREEDING MACHINES with no human rights.

 

[Shadow]

Many of you self-righteous, hypocritical douchwagons really crack me up.

If a woman terminates a perfectly healthy, normal fetus simply because she doesn't want the responsibility, that's her personal choice and everyone should butt out. But but but, if she terminates because she knows she has a retard growing inside her, she's an evil c*nt.

Got it.

Who said that?

 

[martybegan]

Seems to me that the woman being asked to take a child to term is the ONE AND ONLY person who gets to decide.

It's her body, after all. She's taking all the risks, and she is also the person most likely responsible for the child's welfare for the next 18+ years, as well.

If you are opposed to abortions, then by all means don't have one.

As to anybody else's reproductive decisions?

They are NOT your or my business.

When it no longer takes two to create that life, you'll have a valid point. But, right now (in 2011) it still takes a man and a woman. That man has as much say as that woman. It's his kid too.

When that man is prepared to take that fetus into his body and bring it to term, then I'm with you 100%.

Until that happens?

It the WOMAN'S body, ergo it's HER decision what to do with it.

And before you start weaping about that unborn child, do be prepared for to tell you that "child" doesn't have the right to become part of humanity if the woman carrying it doesn't want it.

You think that makes me immoral or heartless?

I think taking any other position relegates women to nothing more than BREEDING MACHINES with no human rights.

The first point is moot because biology prevents it. Biology has made women the carriers of offspring, leaving men to pee standing up.

Also remember that only human technology allows us this conversation to begin with. Abortions without harm to the women are only possible via surgical technology or pharaceutical technology. We have to mess with biology to make it happen when we want it to.

Finally, we have always drawn the line somewhere, and we still do. We ban 3rd trimester abortions unless there is IDLH to the woman. Does this make them breeding machines?

 

[Shadow]

Is that a disservice to the child or society??

both probably. though i added to my post after you quoted.

So it's only parents that care for a child? And when that child grows up and can function perfectly well on its own? Those people are better off dead?

I don't get it. Really, I don't. We claim to be a society in which we should 'stay out of other people's business' and yet here we are, conservatives and liberals, trying to tell the rest of us that we have no right to choose life for DS kids.

I find it sickening that other people think it's okay to decide who lives and who dies.

I agree with you because I don't think this trend will be just for weeding out terminal birth defects or even cases of babies with downs. Infact... I read a survey of doctors that said that almost 80% would endorse abortion in cases of dwarfism. I think this was done by the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute. Anyway... that was quite shocking for me to read. So... really this type of thing is just heading toward a society that only condones perfect people... which to me is disgusting.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Several things here........a DS child will more than likely be on Medicare for their entire life (which is about a 60 year life span). Not only that, but it takes a VERY strong relationship to deal with something like that.

I personally believe that the earlier a family can have the information, the better, because they will be able to mentally and financially prepare themselves for the responsibility that they're taking on.

However.............not all couples are equipped either emotionally or financially, or both for the added responsibilities of a DS child.

If they can get the test verified prior to the current legal standard for abortions, then it should be left up to the couple themselves.

It's not anybody else's business, because that decision doesn't necessarily affect society at large, but it DOES have a severe impact on the couple having the child. You're not in the relationship, so you should have no say.

Oh.........and stating that the father of the child has a say in whether or not the child is aborted............Does that apply to women who were victims of rape as well? I mean, can the rapist force the woman to have the child?

In my book, no. The woman should have the lion's share of the say in this circumstance.

 

[syrenn]

I think all women should have a test like this to make better informed choices about aborting or keeping a baby.

I also feel that once a diagnosis like this is made that the parents know up front that they will be totally financially responsible for that child for the rest of its life.

Okay. I want to make sure I have this right..... MY parents (lower middle class in 1974) should have aborted me because they might not have been able to afford all of my medical care themselves if my condition had turned out to be as bad as it could have been?

Do I have that right, syrenn? I just want to make sure that I'm not missing something here.

Oh, and by the way, they both had family members who stepped up and offered to help defer any costs related to my issues after I was born. Thankfully that didn't end up being necessary. But it would seem to me that your viewpoint here is that anyone who is in the lower strata of the economic world should not be allowed to have a child who might require assistance.

I am saying that if a couple with prior knowledge of a disabled child and all of the financial needs that child will be, are better prepared to make an informed decision as to abort that pregnancy or not.

That being said...any parent with full knowledge that they may not be able to afford possible medically extensive care for a child, are irresponsible parents...and possibly should not have children based on that irresponsibility alone.

I mat saying that anyone should NOT be allowed to carry any pregnancy they want. But i do not think the government should be responsible for their choices.

In simple terms...if you want a pet, do not expect the government to pay for your pet. Be responsible for your actions.

Again this is about personal choices of the mother and the parents. I want parents to foot the bill for their special needs children...all on their own.

 

[syrenn]

Is that a disservice to the child or society??

both probably. though i added to my post after you quoted.

So it's only parents that care for a child? And when that child grows up and can function perfectly well on its own? Those people are better off dead?

I don't get it. Really, I don't. We claim to be a society in which we should 'stay out of other people's business' and yet here we are, conservatives and liberals, trying to tell the rest of us that we have no right to choose life for DS kids.

I find it sickening that other people think it's okay to decide who lives and who dies.

I have no issues with parents choosing life for a DS child.

I do have issues when the parents of DS children that they choose to keep..... want the government...and all of us...to pay for it the rest of its life.

Again, if the parents want it...be prepared to pay and care for it the rest of its life.

 

[manifold]

Let's not forget the fact that in many cases DS is the result of in-breeding. Sort of nature's way of saying this gene pool is tapped.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[Anachronism]

I am saying that if a couple with prior knowledge of a disabled child and all of the financial needs that child will be, are better prepared to make an informed decision as to abort that pregnancy or not.

The financial needs that child MAY incur. Nothing is guaranteed in these cases. I will agree that they're more prepared to make an informed decision; but your prior post made it sound like you would consider anyone who didn't abort to be mentally deficient themselves.

That being said...any parent with full knowledge that they may not be able to afford possible medically extensive care for a child, are irresponsible parents...and possibly should not have children based on that irresponsibility alone.

Again, it seems to me that we're headed down a road where simply because of someone's socio-economic strata we tell them they have to abort a child that they want simply because the child may/will have a disability or birth defect. That's a very scary idea for people like me, syrenn. Under that ideology I NEVER GET TO BE BORN.

I'm not saying that anyone should NOT be allowed to carry any pregnancy they want. But i do not think the government should be responsible for their choices.

You know I'm a big believer in personal responsibility; but some things we don't get to make decisions about in life, and I have a hard time condemning people for bad things they didn't choose. I understand that many people look at a child as a choice. Well, many of us don't see it that way.

In simple terms...if you want a pet, do not expect the government to pay for your pet. Be responsible for your actions.

Nice to know that I qualify on the same rung of the family ladder as Lassie, and the cat.

Again this is about personal choices of the mother and the parents. I want parents to foot the bill for their special needs children...all on their own.

Again, you know I'm a proponent of personal responsibility; but what is your answer for the idealogues who will not choose abortion? Are they to sit there and watch their child die? Are the doctors and nurses to sit there idly while that child dies? Obviously this is where hopefully private charities would step in to some point, but it sounds like you would like to see all private insurance companies relieved from the requirement to pay for any services as well. Is that your viewpoint?

I say this as someone who had to FIGHT an insurance company to be allowed to purchase additional life insurance when I turned 18 because of my SW diagnosis. When the adjustor met me, she was shocked. She couldn't believe that a SW patient could be an Eagle Scout, a multiple time letter winner in two different sports, active in all the different things I did, etc...

 

[martybegan]

Let's not forget the fact that in many cases DS is the result of in-breeding. Sort of nature's way of saying this gene pool is tapped.

But whatcha gonna do?

Acutually DS is more the result of women having kids at an older age, with older ovum. As DS sufferers are usually sterile it is not a true hereditary disease. examples of diseases due to inbreeding is Hemophillia in the descendants on Queen Victoria, and "hapsburg jaw" in the hapsburgs.

Mental defects from inbreeding are usually far more rare genetic disorders.

 

[Shadow]

Let's not forget the fact that in many cases DS is the result of in-breeding. Sort of nature's way of saying this gene pool is tapped.

But whatcha gonna do?

Acutually DS is more the result of women having kids at an older age, with older ovum. As DS sufferers are usually sterile it is not a true hereditary disease. examples of diseases due to inbreeding is Hemophillia in the descendants on Queen Victoria, and "hapsburg jaw" in the hapsburgs.

Mental defects from inbreeding are usually far more rare genetic disorders.

Are some people more likely than others to have a baby who has Down syndrome?


If you have already had a baby who has Down syndrome, you are more likely to have another one. For every 100 couples who have another baby, 1 will have another who has Down syndrome. If you have been diagnosed with a chromosomal abnormality, you also have an increased risk of having a baby who has Down syndrome.

Additionally, the risk of Down syndrome increases with the age of the mother, as shown in this table:

Risk of Down Syndrome

Mother's age Chance of having a baby with Down syndrome

20 years 1 in 1,667
25 years 1 in 1,300
30 years 1 in 950
35 years 1 in 365
40 years 1 in 100
45 years 1 in 30


Down Syndrome and Your Unborn Baby -- familydoctor.org

Also looking at this article it also states what I and a few others brought up earlier...

A negative screening only means that your "risk" of having a downs baby is higher...it doesn't always guarantee the baby has downs syndrome.

That's one of the reasons why I question doctors highlighting and talking up the negatives in these situations. The original OP's bent was in thinking it is better to follow up with this while the mother is not yet "attached" to the idea of a "baby" as being good.

 

[Grace]

Why is it unethical for people not to want to have a defective child?

Define 'defective'. I have two downs sydrome kids in my family. They are not 'defective', they are people - bright, funny, gentle, self sufficient, kind people. They are no more 'defective' than you or I.

They are Angels from God. Yes, I really believe that. Who wouldn't want an Angel?

 

[Anachronism]

They are Angels from God. Yes, I really believe that. Who wouldn't want an Angel?

Somehow I doubt you'd consider me an Angel, Grace. Maybe a Fallen Angel.

 

[rdean]

Right wingers don't care about old people. Why do they care about children with "Down's syndrome"? Aren't the leaders they just elected voting to cut the "Special Olympics"? What a confused bunch of right wingers.

 

[Shadow]

Right wingers don't care about old people. Why do they care about children with "Down's syndrome"? Aren't the leaders they just elected voting to cut the "Special Olympics"? What a confused bunch of right wingers.

What do you care...libs just want to kill babies with birth defects while still in the womb.

Talk about confused.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Are you able to consider other perspectives that are different from your own?? If 20 years from now there was no reason, other than an informed choice, for people to have handicapped children, how would you view those parents for their decision??

Quite honestly i think they would be doing a disservice to the child.

In every single case?? It might not be the existence that you'd choose for yourself or your child, but if it can be one in which other people experience happiness, joy and love, then it is a life with positive meaning.

Yes in every single case.