It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Comfort or conflict: Earlier Down syndrome test

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:17 PM
reply to post by beezzer

If Your actions directly affect someone's expendable income You are in fact determining their quality of life.

Forcing someone to have a child they cannot afford thus affects their expendable income and therefore their quality of life.

Not to mention if all 1.3 Million abortions performed yearly in the U.S. were forced to be brought to term by parents who didn't want the child could lead to 1.3 million children the state would have to take care of.

After the initial 17 years the state would be taking care of 22,100,000 unwanted children to the tune of approximately $11,000 a child.

22,100,000 x $11,000 = $243,100,000,000 a year that would have to be picked up by the tax payers

States cut loose foster kids when they age out of programs at 18, and the abrupt cutoff usually takes a toll on their prospects for success, says a new study. The University of Chicago survey found that by 24, just 6% of former foster kids have a college degree of any kind, more than two-thirds of women have children, and almost 60% of men have been convicted of a crime. And it’s not surprising, say advocates.

If You take those figures and figure 50% male/female ratio you'd have 390,000(60% of males) more criminals being released into society every year.

not to mention the 433,000 (2/3 of females have children by the age of 24) children being born to mothers with no support system (and most likely no mothering skills)

Those are some staggering numbers and a huge burden on society just so You can feel good about Yourself by regulating what someone else can or cannot do with their own body.
edit on 13-6-2011 by Adamanteus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 10:56 AM
It's my understanding that, at least in my state, the profoundly retarded, or those existing in a persistent vegetative state from birth are placed immediately on the state's medicaid system. So when a Downs baby is born and heart surgery is needed, as it often is, the state picks up the bill. I think the personal obligation is the bigger of the reasons for choosing or not choosing to abort. I don't have an opinion one way or the other about it.

The wealthy can and are picking the characteristics of their children. Isn't that their choice? You can clamor about the moral aspects of choosing what and who your children will be, but it will quietly continue to occur, behind the closed and very exclusive doors of the "haves".

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by beezzer
.... the parents who made the decision to perform the act which led to the child.

When parents have sex for purposes of procreation, the expectation is that the baby will be born healthy. the expectation is that a healthy child will be born, a child who will grow to live independently, a child who will outlive parents. In past times, the very survival of the family and the group in which it lived would be put at risk if care had to be diverted to a member who could not live independently, or a member who could not ensure survival of the group.

Before science came up with tests to determine in utero the health of the fetus, parents would be confronted at birth with the shock of a newborn with the inability to survive or the inability to live an independent, long life. Such a shock is the equivalent of shock from a physical death, as it is the death of the parents' prior aspirations for their newborn.

Back then doctors mercifully allowed newborns to die peacefully without medical intervention or extraordinary means. Or parents made the painful decision to put their child under the care of an institution, to receive care (medical, or financial, or emotional) the parents knew they could not give.

Nowadays, early testing can allow the parents to still make a painful decision. The aspirations for a healthy newborn still die, but parents can choose not to bring into this world a child who would need a level of care they feel they could not personally provide.

I think we do a disservice when we do not fully explain what it means to care for a physically (or mentally challenged) child. Saying, "Sure, I would change the adult diaper of my 15 year old son when I'm 55!" is not the same as actually doing it. A child with Downs Syndrome or many other challenges needs a commitment to above and beyond ordinary care in order to have the best quality of life.

For a few decades now, society has been able to help parents learn to care for their children they have decided to bring into this world, but, sadly, many of the programs to help children are being cut/underfunded. We used to speak proudly of our "million dollar" babies, newborns who needed a million dollars worth of care before leaving the hospital.

Maybe such proclamations served well the egos of a medical establishment, and were made in more prosperous times, but unless society (private and public) is prepared to continue to devote many dollars for its children with health challenges, any talk of valuing life is cruel lip service.

posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 12:38 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

new topics

top topics
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in