Comfort or conflict: Earlier Down syndrome test

Originally posted by beezzer
teaching morality would eliminate more abortions than legislating it.

But whose flavor of morality? Judeo/Christian, Muslim, Hedonist, Church of the subhuman, etc.?

Morality is not an absolute and it seems to change with the cultural wind.

I'm old enough to remember when people said "please and thank you"

Originally posted by whaaa

But whose flavor of morality? Judeo/Christian, Muslim, Hedonist, Church of the subhuman, etc.?

Morality is not an absolute and it seems to change with the cultural wind.

I'm old enough to remember when people said "please and thank you"

edit on 12-6-2011 by whaaa because: I need a beer!

Why not all? It doesn't have to be just one or the other.

I'm in the same age bracket as well.

reply to post by beezzer


Is there a high rate of mothers who abort the Pregnancy after finding out at 9 weeks ? I feel at heart abortion is a mothers choice but i personally would not agree with aborting a life because it wont be what we consider normal .

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by Exuberant1

 

Now that is a good point..... If homosexuality is genetic would somone prefer the mutation to be removed? Are there any gay people that wished they were straight? Are there any straight guys that wished they were gay?

Are there any straight parents who want gay kids? No, and that's what counts here. No one knocks up their wife and hopes for a gay or retarded child.

Actually, I couldn't care less whether either of my children were gay. They are still my children and I would always love them. Same with mental retardation or deformities. In fact, my youngest daughter was born with an extra thumb but we saw it as just a little more of her to love

This is a topic that I'm sure will never have a clear answer. It relies too much on human emotions.
People have different views and while I would happily continue with a pregnancy even if my child had Downs Syndrome I understand how other might not. But that is my own bias as I know a few children with DS and they are wonderful children and most are surprisingly smart kids. Such loving people too. These days things like DS, Cystic Fibrosis etc don't always equate to that person needing intense full time care all their lives OR having only a short life span.
People should be given as much information not just about the hard and often scary times with these conditions but also the plus points. (There are some!)
The choice should ALWAYS be ultimately down to the parents in the end though when it comes to disabilities etc and their own feelings as to whether they could really give the child the best life and also the long term prognosis for the child.
However, as for choosing eye colour, hair colour etc that should (IMO) never be an option for abortion. Aesthetics should not play a part in your ability to care for your child, ever. Even if the scientific ability is available, it does not mean it should be used. Although I imagine in some countries/cultures it would be.

Wow. I didn't mean to write so much.... and it probably all sounds rubbish too

I think we have to face the reality that if the world continues on it's current
path to a scientific dictatorship eugenics will become the norm.

It appears to be inevitable, unless something completely changes the
direction of human society...

Originally posted by asala
And i would honestly say if others have not met a child with this illness then you should! They are the most wonderfull humans i have ever met,
Really it makes me wonder what we class as perfect these days, I aspire to love as much as they do, We can learn so much from people we class as *not perfect*

I am fortunate to have had a number of individuals with Down's in my life, and agree, there is something incredibly special about them. I didn't take the tests for Down's when I was pregnant because it wouldn't have made a difference to me. All children are born perfect. For a child to even make it that far, is a miracle, for them to make it that far with the additional burden of a disability is damned tenacity and should be celebrated as such.

That said, I agree, it is an additional commitment, as a parent, to care for a disabled child and society can be cruel and judgemental making that task lonely and isolating. I can understand that some may not feel able to approach that, and may feel that it is selfish to bring that child into a world that is so competitive. There but for the grace of god go I. I cannot and would not judge.

Originally posted by ScorpioRising
Actually, I couldn't care less whether either of my children were gay.

Wow. I didn't mean to write so much.... and it probably all sounds rubbish too

it sounded good to me

I think Gay people are God's answer to overpopulation ;D

Originally posted by Signals
reply to post by beezzer

 

Yep.

It's easy to be Pro Choice, when you're not the one getting killed.

And it's easy to be "pro life" when you're not the one pregnant with something you don't want to spend the rest of your life looking after.

reply to post by Forevever

a little girl from like England comes to mind but I dont remember her name offhand - she murdered a 3 year old when she was only 8 - surely if HER MOM had been aborted it would've prevented the abuse of this child - to inevitably prevent the murder of an innocent 3 year old

It was Mary Bell, and she murdered two boys aged 3 and 4. She was 10 when she killed Martin Brown age 4 and 11when she killed Brian Howe age 3. She has one daughter and she's now a 54 yr old Grandmother, and she managed to gain anonymity for herself and her daughter for life...

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Forevever

 

a little girl from like England comes to mind but I dont remember her name offhand - she murdered a 3 year old when she was only 8 - surely if HER MOM had been aborted it would've prevented the abuse of this child - to inevitably prevent the murder of an innocent 3 year old

It was Mary Bell, and she murdered two boys aged 3 and 4. She was 10 when she killed Martin Brown age 4 and 11when she killed Brian Howe age 3. She has one daughter and she's now a 54 yr old Grandmother, and she managed to gain anonymity for herself and her daughter for life...

Thats the one! absolutely!

Depending on which side of the fence a person is on regarding "responsibility" and "age" this anonymity could be a good thing - but I'm positive its no comfort to Mrs Brown or Mrs Howe -

I am personally of the opinion that anyone who kills my 3 year old should be retroactively aborted, I dont care what age they are.

Originally posted by beezzer


What to do. You can know find out 9 weeks into a pregnancy if your child is going to have Downs Syndrome. Eugenics much? My personal idea on this, and it is my opinion only, humnas are flawed. People are flawed. Society is flawed. Our world is flawed. Life is flawed. To try to perfect it, with "weeding" out folks like this is to invite a nightmare into society.
What will be next? Short people? Brown hair? People with vision problems, heart problems, CF, an alphabet soup of disease names?
We're walking down a dangerous path.

Tread lightly.

www.breitbart.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

hey whats wrong with brown hair?

Originally posted by Forevever

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Forevever

 

a little girl from like England comes to mind but I dont remember her name offhand - she murdered a 3 year old when she was only 8 - surely if HER MOM had been aborted it would've prevented the abuse of this child - to inevitably prevent the murder of an innocent 3 year old

It was Mary Bell, and she murdered two boys aged 3 and 4. She was 10 when she killed Martin Brown age 4 and 11when she killed Brian Howe age 3. She has one daughter and she's now a 54 yr old Grandmother, and she managed to gain anonymity for herself and her daughter for life...

Thats the one! absolutely!

Depending on which side of the fence a person is on regarding "responsibility" and "age" this anonymity could be a good thing - but I'm positive its no comfort to Mrs Brown or Mrs Howe -

I am personally of the opinion that anyone who kills my 3 year old should be retroactively aborted, I dont care what age they are.

this is all true but either way one of them was going to die, either 8 year old during the abortion or 3 year old when the 8 year old was 8

but then she murdered two boys and not one 3 year old and there agree with all of what you are saying

reply to post by ShadowZion


seriously, I'd rather get rid of the blondes!

no medical reason, I'm just partial to dark hair

Originally posted by ShadowZion

Originally posted by Forevever

Originally posted by destination now
reply to post by Forevever

 

a little girl from like England comes to mind but I dont remember her name offhand - she murdered a 3 year old when she was only 8 - surely if HER MOM had been aborted it would've prevented the abuse of this child - to inevitably prevent the murder of an innocent 3 year old

It was Mary Bell, and she murdered two boys aged 3 and 4. She was 10 when she killed Martin Brown age 4 and 11when she killed Brian Howe age 3. She has one daughter and she's now a 54 yr old Grandmother, and she managed to gain anonymity for herself and her daughter for life...

Thats the one! absolutely!

Depending on which side of the fence a person is on regarding "responsibility" and "age" this anonymity could be a good thing - but I'm positive its no comfort to Mrs Brown or Mrs Howe -

I am personally of the opinion that anyone who kills my 3 year old should be retroactively aborted, I dont care what age they are.

this is all true but either way one of them was going to die, either 8 year old during the abortion or 3 year old when the 8 year old was 8

THAT is an awesome point..... and then what if the 3 year old was going to grow up to be Charles Manson.... maybe Mary was doing us a service!!

Luckily I never said my theory wasn't flawed - phew - I woulda been embarrassed!

I think this conundrum only emphasizes the truth - no ONE person has a right to say who should die - but since there are 2 sides to every coin - no ONE person has a right to say who should live either

reply to post by beezzer


At age 38 I found myself unexpectedly pregnant. An ultrasound exam revealed what the doctor referred to as bright bowel syndrom. Usually an early indicator to downs syndrom. I had amniocentesis preformed which was very painful. Fortunatly for us our child turned out not to have down syndrom. The problem my husband and I found ourself facing was this. At the time we were pretty much living hand to mouth. I had to quickly sign up for health insurance at work when I found out I was pregnant because we did not have the money to maintian health insurance coverage. A child with downs syndrom is not just mentally challenged. This child will have health problems in many areas including the heart. A child like that would have been impossible for us to raise and still keep a roof over the heads of the other 4 people already making up our family. Our decision was that if the test came back positive for downs syndrom that we would abort the child much as that would pain us. Being able to make this choice would never be easy. I support a womans right to choice in pregnancy but could never make the choice to abort for myself. I have three children and have been pregnant three times. The first when I was a teen and abortion was newly legal.
I dont look at this as culling out so much as giving a family a chance to choose if they can welcome a challanged child into their lives. Some people will not be able to do this based on finances and some will not be able to based on ego. That is their perogotive. Not all people who find out they are having a child with downs syndrom will abort their babies.
Comparing this to culling out short people or people with brown hair ( blonds are actually in a severe decline in mother natures own culling process) is not fair and its doubtful that this would happen but culling out disease from the gene pool is not a bad thing. We all would have a wish that the generations to come will be healthy strong people. Thats completely normal too.

I understand the fear and hopelessness that is associated with the preliminary test that identifies the heighten Down Syndrome risk.

And I know that having the less invasive, more accurate follow up test seems like a great resource to have. It seems to allow you to be better informed in order to make "decisions" regarding the situation.

But I also know a secret that no one thrust into this situation can yet know. And after you know the secret, which can only be discovered by living it, then the existence of this test becomes irrelevant, and the questions associated with it boil down to only one word.....why?

The secret is that Down Syndrome can actually be a very clear window into the peace and presence that we all seek on this board. Having this window live side by side with you in your home can not be adequately described in a message board post.....so I won't try. But as a parent of a toddler born with Down Syndrome I can only encourage any who would be faced with this decision to choose the route of discovery and adventure. You don't need this test. It doesn't teach you anything you need to know. Instead bring your baby home and let the adventure begin.

reply to post by beezzer



I would draw the line at any disease for which the person who is born would have to rely on constant care for their entire lives (under assumption with current science).

Quality of life trumps all.

If I got pregnant again & found out at 9weeks that my un-born child had a 99% chance of down syndrom, I would most definitely terminate the pregnancy. I want my child to have a chance at LIFE, not a chance to live.

Originally posted by cassp83
reply to post by beezzer

 

I would draw the line at any disease for which the person who is born would have to rely on constant care for their entire lives (under assumption with current science).

Quality of life trumps all.

If I got pregnant again & found out at 9weeks that my un-born child had a 99% chance of down syndrom, I would most definitely terminate the pregnancy. I want my child to have a chance at LIFE, not a chance to live.

Quality of life is important, but if/when someone else determines that quality level, then you run into problems. Because it'll be their interpretation of quality.

reply to post by beezzer

Quality of life is important, but if/when someone else determines that quality level, then you run into problems. Because it'll be their interpretation of quality.

by the very act of giving birth You are determining Your child's quality of life. Maybe you only make 40k a year and are very thrifty in Your spending to save for the future. Maybe Your Child determines their Quality of life should be that of a person who's parents make 250k a year and gives them a $1k a month allowance.

By the very act of forcing someone to have a child with medical needs above and beyond what they can provide for Are You then not determining both the parent(s) and child's Quality of life for them?

Originally posted by Adamanteus
By the very act of forcing someone to have a child with medical needs above and beyond what they can provide for Are You then not determining both the parent(s) and child's Quality of life for them?

edit on 13-6-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)

I'm not determining quality of life (which is subjective) I'd be determining life! Quality would be the personal responsibility of the parents who made the decision to perform the act which led to the child.