Interesting read about Down Syndrome

Mar 15, 2003
12,668
103
106
Read an article in Time magazine about a new test that allows for even earlier screening for down syndrome. Currently, the test can only be taken in the 2nd trimester, the new test can be taken far earlier. A part of the article hinted at something that made me a bit sad, not as a cross hugger.... It just troubled me. 80-90% of couples faced with a positive result for D.S. currently abort the baby. I found that troubling not because of my views on abortion (pro-choice, if you must know), but because of what it says about our society's preference to take the easy way out than to deal with adversity.

I mean, if I was put in the same situation I?d probably be part of that statistic, and I would be cold to call that decision ?easy.? I?m empathetic to the difficulties of being in that situation, I just wonder if this is the start of something much worse. I always had a theory that abortions would sky rocket once we had more thorough DNA screenings. ?Your child is destined to have an I.Q. of less than 80.? ?Your child is predetermined to be fat.? ?Your child is predetermined to be gay.? That?s always troubled me and this article drove that point home. Eventually, when we have the technology, would we not use it to make everyone?s life ?easier,? the way people in india abort female fetuses because their lives would be "harder" if the little girl was born?
 

D1gger

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
5,411
2
76
My wife and I have had this discussion and we both agree that she would abort. At first blush this may seem selfish, but one of the major deciding factors was what happens when we are no longer able to look after a D.S. person. I have a cousin who had a D.S. baby when she was in her early 40's. She is now in her late 60's, her husband died a few years ago, and her health is failing. Charlie, her D.S. son, lives with her, and is unable to look after himself, she has very little estate, and when she dies (likely in the next six months to a year), Charlie will probably end up in some sort of government supported care facility (read looney bin). That is not a life I would choose for anyone.
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Is the furthuring of genetic purity that horrible of a thing?

/runs away to Germany.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: D1gger
My wife and I have had this discussion and we both agree that she would abort. At first blush this may seem selfish, but one of the major deciding factors was what happens when we are no longer able to look after a D.S. person. I have a cousin who had a D.S. baby when she was in her early 40's. She is now in her late 60's, her husband died a few years ago, and her health is failing. Charlie, her D.S. son, lives with her, and is unable to look after himself, she has very little estate, and when she dies (likely in the next six months to a year), Charlie will probably end up in some sort of government supported care facility (read looney bin). That is not a life I would choose for anyone.

Who are you (or anyone) to say that Charlie's life is better off non-existant than living in a "looney bin"?

What's next? Aborting because the child is not tall enough? Not blonde?

What's the difference between aborting the child 1 month before or 1 month after the time of birth?
 

tweakmm

Lifer
May 28, 2001
18,436
4
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: D1gger
My wife and I have had this discussion and we both agree that she would abort. At first blush this may seem selfish, but one of the major deciding factors was what happens when we are no longer able to look after a D.S. person. I have a cousin who had a D.S. baby when she was in her early 40's. She is now in her late 60's, her husband died a few years ago, and her health is failing. Charlie, her D.S. son, lives with her, and is unable to look after himself, she has very little estate, and when she dies (likely in the next six months to a year), Charlie will probably end up in some sort of government supported care facility (read looney bin). That is not a life I would choose for anyone.

Who are you (or anyone) to say that Charlie's life is better off non-existant than living in a "looney bin"?

What's next? Aborting because the child is not tall enough? Not blonde?

What's the difference between aborting the child 1 month or 1 month after the time of birth?
You make good points and then abort all credibility with the bolded comment.
 

Dimmu

Senior member
Jun 24, 2005
890
0
0
Originally posted by: tweakmm
Is the furthuring of genetic purity that horrible of a thing?

/runs away to Germany.

I'd have to say that I agree with that idea completely, actually. At any rate, it sure couldn't hurt.

/runs away with tweakmm to Germany

 

imported_goku

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2004
7,613
3
0
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Read an article in Time magazine about a new test that allows for even earlier screening for down syndrome. Currently, the test can only be taken in the 2nd trimester, the new test can be taken far earlier. A part of the article hinted at something that made me a bit sad, not as a cross hugger.... It just troubled me. 80-90% of couples faced with a positive result for D.S. currently abort the baby. I found that troubling not because of my views on abortion (pro-choice, if you must know), but because of what it says about our society's preference to take the easy way out than to deal with adversity.

I mean, if I was put in the same situation I?d probably be part of that statistic, and I would be cold to call that decision ?easy.? I?m empathetic to the difficulties of being in that situation, I just wonder if this is the start of something much worse. I always had a theory that abortions would sky rocket once we had more thorough DNA screenings. ?Your child is destined to have an I.Q. of less than 80.? ?Your child is predetermined to be fat.? ?Your child is predetermined to be gay.? That?s always troubled me and this article drove that point home. Eventually, when we have the technology, would we not use it to make everyone?s life ?easier,? the way people in india abort female fetuses because their lives would be "harder" if the little girl was born?

I think it's quite the opposite for you to say that your being "selfish". Your not selfish for wanting your kid to be able to take care of them self. Now it WOULD BE selfish of you to want to have the kid EVEN though you KNEW very well it would have D.S. There are people out there that feed on the need to care, now THATS selfish. I'd do the same. :)
 
Mar 15, 2003
12,668
103
106
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: D1gger
My wife and I have had this discussion and we both agree that she would abort. At first blush this may seem selfish, but one of the major deciding factors was what happens when we are no longer able to look after a D.S. person. I have a cousin who had a D.S. baby when she was in her early 40's. She is now in her late 60's, her husband died a few years ago, and her health is failing. Charlie, her D.S. son, lives with her, and is unable to look after himself, she has very little estate, and when she dies (likely in the next six months to a year), Charlie will probably end up in some sort of government supported care facility (read looney bin). That is not a life I would choose for anyone.

Who are you (or anyone) to say that Charlie's life is better off non-existant than living in a "looney bin"?

What's next? Aborting because the child is not tall enough? Not blonde?

What's the difference between aborting the child 1 month before or 1 month after the time of birth?

D1gger, I'm empathetic to the hard decision you and your wife faced and I'm not going to say that you did the "wrong" thing. Again, I probably would have made the same decision, I'm not sure - your shoes are not on my feet. My question is a larger one, as JS80 pointed out. When given the technology, will we pick and chose our offspring? This new age of genetic science is one that raises a lot of interesting questions. I'm not judging you or anyone, just asking questions.

 
Mar 15, 2003
12,668
103
106
Originally posted by: goku
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Read an article in Time magazine about a new test that allows for even earlier screening for down syndrome. Currently, the test can only be taken in the 2nd trimester, the new test can be taken far earlier. A part of the article hinted at something that made me a bit sad, not as a cross hugger.... It just troubled me. 80-90% of couples faced with a positive result for D.S. currently abort the baby. I found that troubling not because of my views on abortion (pro-choice, if you must know), but because of what it says about our society's preference to take the easy way out than to deal with adversity.

I mean, if I was put in the same situation I?d probably be part of that statistic, and I would be cold to call that decision ?easy.? I?m empathetic to the difficulties of being in that situation, I just wonder if this is the start of something much worse. I always had a theory that abortions would sky rocket once we had more thorough DNA screenings. ?Your child is destined to have an I.Q. of less than 80.? ?Your child is predetermined to be fat.? ?Your child is predetermined to be gay.? That?s always troubled me and this article drove that point home. Eventually, when we have the technology, would we not use it to make everyone?s life ?easier,? the way people in india abort female fetuses because their lives would be "harder" if the little girl was born?

I think it's quite the opposite for you to say that your being "selfish". Your not selfish for wanting your kid to be able to take care of them self. Now it WOULD BE selfish of you to want to have the kid EVEN though you KNEW very well it would have D.S. There are people out there that feed on the need to care, now THATS selfish. I'd do the same. :)

I didn't use the word selfish once, stop putting words in my mouth ;)
 

D1gger

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
5,411
2
76
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: D1gger
My wife and I have had this discussion and we both agree that she would abort. At first blush this may seem selfish, but one of the major deciding factors was what happens when we are no longer able to look after a D.S. person. I have a cousin who had a D.S. baby when she was in her early 40's. She is now in her late 60's, her husband died a few years ago, and her health is failing. Charlie, her D.S. son, lives with her, and is unable to look after himself, she has very little estate, and when she dies (likely in the next six months to a year), Charlie will probably end up in some sort of government supported care facility (read looney bin). That is not a life I would choose for anyone.

Who are you (or anyone) to say that Charlie's life is better off non-existant than living in a "looney bin"?

What's next? Aborting because the child is not tall enough? Not blonde?

What's the difference between aborting the child 1 month before or 1 month after the time of birth?

I gave you my opinion. If you don't agree fine, but I am not going to get into p1ssing contest with anyone about right to life decisions.

Taking extreme examples (abort because child is not tall enough) to win an arguement will never fly with me. It is possible to find absurd examples for any situation. I gave my opinion on a specific question, which you choose to take to the absurd.
 

D1gger

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
5,411
2
76
Originally posted by: freedomsbeat212
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: D1gger
My wife and I have had this discussion and we both agree that she would abort. At first blush this may seem selfish, but one of the major deciding factors was what happens when we are no longer able to look after a D.S. person. I have a cousin who had a D.S. baby when she was in her early 40's. She is now in her late 60's, her husband died a few years ago, and her health is failing. Charlie, her D.S. son, lives with her, and is unable to look after himself, she has very little estate, and when she dies (likely in the next six months to a year), Charlie will probably end up in some sort of government supported care facility (read looney bin). That is not a life I would choose for anyone.

Who are you (or anyone) to say that Charlie's life is better off non-existant than living in a "looney bin"?

What's next? Aborting because the child is not tall enough? Not blonde?

What's the difference between aborting the child 1 month before or 1 month after the time of birth?

D1gger, I'm empathetic to the hard decision you and your wife faced and I'm not going to say that you did the "wrong" thing. Again, I probably would have made the same decision, I'm not sure - your shoes are not on my feet. My question is a larger one, as JS80 pointed out. When given the technology, will we pick and chose our offspring? This new age of genetic science is one that raises a lot of interesting questions. I'm not judging you or anyone, just asking questions.


Freedomsbeat212
Sorry, I wasn't clear in my original post. We did not have to face this decision, it was simply something we talked about before we did have kids (I have two wonderful kids). I would extend our decision to other dramatic syndromes or mutations, but I would not agree at all with abortion as a method of selecting personality traits or cosmetic issues.
 

RKS

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
6,824
3
81
I am probably a lot more pro-choice than my wife but for both of our healthy children we chose not to have any unnecessary test done during gestation.