Would you abort a child with Down Syndrome?

CerebralCortex

BostonB wrote: »

prinz wrote: »

...The same could be said for any number of conditions, illnesses, disabilities, lifestyle choices...

Well you can't have it both ways, either its a "perceived drain" (horrible terminology) or it has real impact as do other conditions. I'm completely baffled how you'er so dismissive of it.

Isn't it obvious?

prinz

strobe wrote: »

Is that not a bit presumptuous Prinz? The predominant attitude I've heard from the majority of people towards the parents of those with Down's has been one of admiration rather than anything for the sacrifice they make and the work they put in to make their child's life as good as possible. That with the fact that in most cases the parents didn't have any option of abortion or foreknowledge of the condition.I find it hard to credit that you seem to be taking it for granted that less Down's children (or any children with disabilities) being born would lead these people into a shift from sympathy and admiration to resentment and ridicule.

Presumptuous? No I don't think so. I'll refer back to the links I supplied already in the thread of prospective parents feeling pushed into an abortion because of DS. Is that an attitude of admiration and acceptance? On the issue of societal acceptance seamus' post a page or two back was fairly accurate.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Do you actually know what you're saying? We should have more Down's syndrome kids so that Down's syndrome sufferers will have a bigger club?
Absolute nonsense.

No, that's not what I am saying. Saying we shouldn't be deliberately killing those with DS for no other reason than they have DS is a concept that turns my stomache in the same way as if the argument was killing all red heads for being redheads or killing all Poles, or killing all people with a clubfoot or killing all Hindus. Of course when your ethnic cleansing comes in a nice sanitary clinic with names to desensitise it doesn't seem so bad anymore. If you can't tell the difference between saying 'we shouldn't be killing an entire group of people for the crime of being different' and 'we should enlarge their 'club'' then that's not my problem.

BostonB wrote: »

Well you can't have it both ways, either its a "perceived drain" (horrible terminology) or it has real impact as do other conditions. I'm completely baffled how you'er so dismissive of it.

Horrible terminology? Why, does it upset you that I am able to express what others tip-toe around to make things more palatable for themselves? I'm 'dismissive' of it in the same way I'd be dismissive of an idea to save on the costs of Special Needs Assistants by going classroom to classroom and killing those schoolchildren who needed them. I find it abhorrent to put a price tag on a human life - and saying you have to weigh up the future costs of caring for someone against their right to life is doing exactly that. By the by it has an impact. That doesn't make it the 'drain' that others have alluded to. So yes, you can it have it both ways, admitting something has an impact is neither a positive nor a negative assessment. It wasn't me who turned it into a negative, hence my comment.

Fuinseog

mydearwatson wrote: »

I'm very much open to correction on this, but I've heard that if scans show up the possibility of Down Syndrome in an unborn child, the parent has the option to abort.

Is this true?

And would you do it? As far as I know, the scan shows up your chances of having a DS child in terms of percentages. Would you continue with the pregnancy if there was a 1% chance? 5%? 50%? 99%?

Assume that the legalities and the stage of pregnancy is irrelevant (i.e. assume that you could legally and easily abort up to birth.)

Personally ... I couldn't ever imagine myself making the decision to abort but I could absolutely understand and respect the decisions of others.

it is not very PC to say so, but I would abort it, perhaps thinking along the lines that you have to be cruel to be kind.

mariaalice

The problem is there are lots of LD people with DS are unfortunate because it can possible be detected in the womb and they have features that can identify them as DS, so society is more aware of them.

There are LD syndromes that a child can have that would have a much worse effect on the lives of the parents.

In all honestly if you have a child with MILD DS it wouldn't have a huge devastating impact on your life.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

No, that's not what I am saying.

It's exactly what you said.

prinz wrote: »

Saying we shouldn't be deliberately killing those with DS for no other reason than they have DS is a concept that turns my stomache in the same way as if the argument was killing all red heads for being redheads or killing all Poles, or killing all people with a clubfoot or killing all Hindus. Of course when your ethnic cleansing comes in a nice sanitary clinic with names to desensitise it doesn't seem so bad anymore.

Aborting cells/embryo that would result in a child with DS is not ethnic cleansing, to paint it as such is dishonest.

prinz wrote: »

If you can't tell the difference between saying 'we shouldn't be killing an entire group of people for the crime of being different' and 'we should enlarge their 'club'' then that's not my problem.

I'm not suggesting that, seriously this is extremely childish. Why do you insist on demonising choice? I think personally that you have trouble accepting the reality that people want to have healthy children. This is obvious when a person chooses a partner to have kids with they look for the strengths that will lead to numerous and strong kids, it's the nature of our evolved biological imperatives.

BostonB

mariaalice wrote: »

....In all honestly if you have a child with MILD DS it wouldn't have a huge devastating impact on your life.

Good points. I think that's part of the issue with this discussion. A family with a child with very mild DS vs severe DS may have very different experience. So sweeping generalisations are not useful. I find when people talk about parenting in general they talk from their narrow range of experience, and simply are oblivious to much beyond that.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Aborting cells/embryo that would result in a child with DS is not ethnic cleansing, to paint it as such is dishonest.

Cells/embryo/foetus/viable foetus/up to nine months gone in the pregnancy. Result is the same. It's only a matter of timing and making it seem more acceptable. It's not so bad as long as we get rid of them in the womb.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that...

But you suggested exactly that when you tried to build a strawman..

Do you actually know what you're saying? We should have more Down's syndrome kids so that Down's syndrome sufferers will have a bigger club?
Absolute nonsense.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I think personally that you have trouble accepting the reality that people want to have healthy children. This is obvious when a person chooses a partner to have kids with they look for the strengths that will lead to numerous and strong kids, it's the nature of our evolved biological imperatives.

Wanting to have healthy children, and making those deemed unfit/unhealthy/unwanted conveniently 'disappear' are two very different things.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Cells/embryo/foetus/viable foetus/up to nine months gone in the pregnancy. Result is the same. It's only a matter of timing and making it seem more acceptable. It's not so bad as long as we get rid of them in the womb.

Well of course you're misrepresenting what I consider acceptable for abortion.
Nowhere, nohow am I saying "KILL WEAK PEOPLE!".

prinz wrote: »

But you suggested exactly that when you tried to build a strawman..

No I'm saying that abortion is okay in regulated circumstances. You believe on extremely poor/non-existent evidence and personal faith that a brainless conciousness-less pile of cells is the same as a person with feeling and capacity for suffering which includes DS suffers, nonDS people, dolphins, great apes, dogs etc. It just isn't the case no matter how much you want it to be true. Essentially when a woman conceives a person doesn't suddenly appear, it takes years for that person to grow. What straw-man am I or have I built in that?

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Wanting to have healthy children, and making those deemed unfit/unhealthy/unwanted conveniently 'disappear' are two very different things.

No one is suggesting making children disappear, just you in all your wisdom :rolleyes:

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well of course you're misrepresenting what I consider acceptable for abortion. Nowhere, nohow am I saying "KILL WEAK PEOPLE!".

Abortion is killing...and the unborn are weak. You are not saying "KILL THE WEAK PEOPLE!", but you are arguing that it should be acceptable for some people to legally kill the weak.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No I'm saying that abortion is okay in regulated circumstances. You believe on extremely poor/non-existent evidence and personal faith that a brainless conciousness-less pile of cells is the same as a person with feeling and capacity for suffering which includes DS suffers, nonDS people, dolphins, great apes, dogs etc. What straw-man am I or have I built in that?

Once again ignoring the fact that abortion can be carried out on a fetus with a serious disability up to nine months in the UK and other places. Is that your "brainless conciousness-less pile of cells? Isn't that one of the aspects of abortion that is conveniently left aside. You have already on this thread made clear that you consider those with progessed Alzheimer's to be dead to you, is euthanasia of them okay in regulated circumstances?

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No one is suggesting making children disappear, just you in all your wisdom :rolleyes:

So you are pregnant one day, not the next. What would you call it?

BostonB

prinz wrote: »

......Horrible terminology? Why, does it upset you that I am able to express what others tip-toe around to make things more palatable for themselves? I'm 'dismissive' of it in the same way I'd be dismissive of an idea to save on the costs of Special Needs Assistants by going classroom to classroom and killing those schoolchildren who needed them. I find it abhorrent to put a price tag on a human life - and saying you have to weigh up the future costs of caring for someone against their right to life is doing exactly that. By the by it has an impact. That doesn't make it the 'drain' that others have alluded to. So yes, you can it have it both ways, admitting something has an impact is neither a positive nor a negative assessment. It wasn't me who turned it into a negative, hence my comment.

Its horrible because an extremely condescending and deliberate way of lumping any mention of the wider impact of a DS child as being inhuman. It has an impact on resources, that's just being practical. its contradictory anyway, as it can't be perceived as in not real, and also have a cost.

BostonB

Seems to me you're making this a thread not about DS but about abortion.

prinz

BostonB wrote: »

Its horrible because an extremely condescending and deliberate way of lumping any mention of the wider impact of a DS child as being inhuman. It has an impact on resources, that's just being practical. its contradictory anyway, as it can't be perceived as in not real, and also have a cost.

A cost is not always a 'drain' the way it is being presented hence my comments that impacts on resources can be viewed positively, neutrally or negatively, as I said using the 'impact on resources' line as an argument for abortion is taking the view that any such impact is a negative.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Abortion is killing...

Proof by assertion.

prinz wrote: »

and the unborn are weak. You are not saying "KILL THE WEAK PEOPLE!", but you are arguing that it should be acceptable for some people to legally kill the weak.

No I'm not. You're misrepresenting me again. I'm arguing that abortion is okay to a point, certainly not in the later stages especially if that means suffering.

prinz wrote: »

Once again ignoring the fact that abortion can be carried out on a fetus with a serious disability up to nine months in the UK and other places.

I'm not, that's your thing.

prinz wrote: »

Is that your "brainless conciousness-less pile of cells? Isn't that one of the aspects of abortion that is conveniently left aside. You have already on this thread made clear that you consider those with progessed Alzheimer's to be dead to you, is euthanasia of them okay in regulated circumstances?

Well their brains are dying, that's where the person resides, the person you know. Yes euthanasia should be an option for them, in fact people do opt to be euthanised so they can die with dignity.

prinz

BostonB wrote: »

Seems to me you're making this a thread not about DS but about abortion.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the thread wasn't about living with DS, or dealing with DS but the concept aborting children with DS. If you wish to separate the two perhaps a different thread strictly on DS would be best.

BostonB

Your argument about abortion have nothing specific about DS. Therefore your generalising about all abortion. Seems to be a topic that mentions DS is being very specific. You're not.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Proof by assertion..

At least have the conviction to stand over your position.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No I'm not. You're misrepresenting me again. I'm arguing that abortion is okay to a point, certainly not in the later stages especially if that means suffering...

Killing is the causing the death of a living organism. A fetus is a living organism with a heartbeat of it's own from about week six or so.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm not, that's your thing..

Well you are as long as you keep painting abortion, especially in the case of disability as a 'few cells' nothing more.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well their brains are dying, that's where the person resides, the person you know. Yes euthanasia should be an option for them, in fact people do opt to be euthanised so they can die with dignity.

..and if they can't make that decision for themselves?

Hogzy

Thread needs a poll.

Gearheart

If my family was going to I think I would sitting here, but come the actual time to make the decision i'm not sure if I could.

prinz

BostonB wrote: »

Your argument about abortion have nothing specific about DS. Therefore your generalising about all abortion. Seems to be a topic that mentions DS is being very specific. You're not.

The first post that veered into abortion in general and away from DS was this one..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74149454&postcount=60

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

At least have the conviction to stand over your position.

Killing is the causing the death of a living organism. A fetus is a living organism with a heartbeat of it's own from about week six or so.

A cell is a living organism but you don't have crisis every time you scratch yourself or do you?

prinz wrote: »

Well you are as long as you keep painting abortion, especially in the case of disability as a 'few cells' nothing more.

I advocate early term abortion.

prinz wrote: »

..and if they can't make that decision for themselves?

Palliative care is the only option, unless you can show that brain is so destroyed that the person is gone.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

A cell is a living organism but you don't have crisis every time you scratch yourself or do you?

So you accept now that abortion is killing?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I advocate early term abortion..

..and how early can you get a definitive diagnosis of Down's Syndrome?

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

So you accept now that abortion is killing?

Yes but unlike you I don't have dogmatic, black and white perspective on the matter.

prinz wrote: »

..and how early can you get a definitive diagnosis of Down's Syndrome?

I don't know, but if there parents could know as soon as possible the more options. I'm also an advocate of genetic engineering and before you say it I'm not a Nazi.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

But unlike you I don't have dogmatic, black and white perspective on the matter..

So yes.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I don't know, but if there parents could know as soon as possible the more options. I'm also an advocate of genetic engineering and before you say it I'm not a Nazi.

Of course not. Nothing remotely similar...

BostonB

This comes down to dogma on abortion on both sides.

Personally I'm a fence sitter and go either way depending on the exact situation, and can't look at it as black and white as you want to. Having been in similar situations, as discussed, I can't see it as B&W. As such I'm going to leave ye to it.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

So yes.



Of course not. Nothing remotely similar...

I updated my post.

prinz

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I updated my post.

Great, so when I said abortion is killing, and you responded with "proof by assertion" what you actually meant is 'yes, I agree, abortion is killing'. Now that we got that much we can move on to killing the weak, do you dispute that the unborn (at whatever stage of gestation) is weak? Or is weakness only something that comes with the passing of years?

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Essentially when a woman conceives a person doesn't suddenly appear, it takes years for that person to grow.

Presumably a newborn child in that case isn't a person, and isn't worthy of protection? Similarly to how someone so ravaged with Alzheimer's that..

Palliative care is the only option, unless you can show that brain is so destroyed that the person is gone.

..and once the 'person is gone' what then? Lethal injection? Bullet?

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Great, so when I said abortion is killing, and you responded with "proof by assertion" what you actually meant is 'yes, I agree, abortion is killing'.

You got me!

Morag

I would, it is a burden I would not want and would not want to pass on to my children when I would be not able to care for such a child. If other people have the compassion and resources and which to have and raise children who have downs fair play to them, they are better people then me in that regard.

alex73

Moon Indigo wrote: »

Bit strong there Alex73. I hope you didn't read my post and think I was saying that because that was not the point. I personally have nothing against DS or those who are DS or any other disability. The world takes and needs all types to make it go around.

I obviously detest abortion and societies pro "choice" attitude to people who abort Down Syndrome babies. See my related Thread.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showt...p?t=2056324984


But Legalised abortion is a ploy by the state to avoid disabled children being born, in the UK over 90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted.

alex73

Sharrow wrote: »

I would, it is a burden I would not want and would not want to pass on to my children when I would be not able to care for such a child. If other people have the compassion and resources and which to have and raise children who have downs fair play to them, they are better people then me in that regard.

If you don't want to raise a sick child. Then don't choose to have children at all. Killing them is not the answer.

CerebralCortex

alex73 wrote: »

If you don't want to raise a sick child. Then don't choose to have children at all. Killing them is not the answer.

Nobody is killing children! Just aborting tissue.

alex73

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Nobody is killing children! Just aborting tissue.

Sure... Just because Hilter said Jews were not human did not make it so. So with a Disabled child in the womb, its a Child.

Society can call them Tissue, but they are Children with the potential to love.

cursai

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Nobody is killing children! Just aborting tissue.

Nice to meet you mother nature!

alex73

alex73 wrote: »

Sure... Just because Hilter said Jews were not human did not make it so. So with a Disabled child in the womb, its a Child.

Society can call them Tissue, but they are Children with the potential to love.

You are comparing abortion to Hilter's extermination of the jews

That's what wrong with society, people with extreme views trying to push their BS onto other people.

Morag

alex73 wrote: »

If you don't want to raise a sick child. Then don't choose to have children at all. Killing them is not the answer.

Abortion is choosing not to have children.
Contraception is never 100% effective and if I found that I was in my late 40s to early 50s and was pregnant and the tests came back positive for down syndrome I would have an abortion. There are adults who have Downs in my extended family and I have seen the toll such a child takes on the family.

alex73

Sharrow wrote: »

Abortion is choosing not to have children.
Contraception is never 100% effective and if I found that I was in my late 40s to early 50s and was pregnant and the tests came back positive for down syndrome I would have an abortion. There are adults who have Downs in my extended family and I have seen the toll such a child takes on the family.

Well there starts the whole debate, I have seen famlies suffer more with autistics kids (2 in family) than with downs. A girl i know with Downs worked with me, she lived a very independent life, they are no idiots.

a test at 12 weeks does not tell you what the person is going to be. "aborting" the child shows how much respect society real has for the disabled.

DARK-KNIGHT

harr wrote: »

Hi
As a parent of a child with DS i would respect any couples right to have a abortion if they found out early enough,we often spoke about this before we had kids and we felt that we would have been unable to cope with a child who had special needs.
None of my wife's scans showed anything was wrong with the baby so it came as a big shock when we found out,so glad now that we never found out our little man is the best in the world and is starting pre school next week.
Its not the case that if a scan shows signs of DS your offered a abortion in Ireland,I had a friend who was told that there was a high chance his baby had DS but the little girl was fine.I hope the people who left some of the disgusting comments here are just trolling and looking for a rise out of people if not they are very narrow mined people.

Well said !!!!!!!! Glad to hear your little son is doing well too!!

I respect people's choices but I ask anyone that is a parent and loves their kids could you really terminate?? I would rather have hugs and kisses from one of my kids disabled or not rather than planning their demise because they would put our noses out of joint!!!

Believe it or not DS kids will love you the same as any child and they are your children you will treasure them

texidub

alex73 wrote: »

a test at 12 weeks does not tell you what the person is going to be.

This is a very good point. Similarly, there is no scan that will predict the 'quality of life' to be enjoyed down the line by a so-called 'normal' embryo. their lives may be awful.

'Quality of life' is a concept with certain normative, conformist assumptions about what the good life is built into it.

Who is to say that person with DS has a lower quality of life than someone without?

Dancing, listening to music, being good-natured and kind... some people with DS have a higher quality of life than so-called 'normal' people, i.e. the rest of us. Some don't.

Nobody's perfect. And no amount of running away --whether it be via social exclusion, abortion, ridicule, or avoidance-- can hide that fact.

Do you have a higher quality of life than me? Do I have a higher quality of life than you? And you? And how about you?

And who is to say that parents of a child with DS might not end up leading better lives than if they had only had so-called normal children?

The scan may very well inform the parents that their child is likely to be born with DS. But we still don't know how things will pan out for that person, or their parents.

So, for me, the question becomes, is abortion an appropriate response to the unknown? If in doubt.. abort.. really? Seems kind of fearful. The kind of fear that --in some people at least-- gets expressed as a kind of clinical harshness.

I'm not against abortion in itself. I am just not convinced by quality of life arguments.

EDIT: Sorry.. to answer your question: No I wouldn't react to my fear that way. (Nor would I condemn those that do. They are simply the product of their genes and environment.. like the rest of us.. like DS people too.)

CerebralCortex

I wish there was a thumbs down option.

alex73

@ texidub Post 92. I read so much the argument... "I would not abort but I respect other peoples choice to"... Its so sad so see the intrinsic objective value of a Child reduced to this. The false arguments that have brainwashed modern society into believing its perfectly fine to abort. Problem is that when people object strongly to abortion they are considered right-wing religious nutters,, but Humanity is not left or right, its about the objective reality of the value of the person, value of a Child, Any child, that has sadly been lost.

Over 90% of DS babies in the UK are aborted... Goes to show you the value that is placed on them. I heard a comment... Oh she had to have the baby because she is Catholic.. Crazy. A Child is a Child and transcends religion and opinions.


Also... the search for the Perfect child does not mean a happy adult.

Morag

That scan will say the likely hood and the amino test can confirm it, then it's no longer a possibility but a surety. Yes autism is another type of struggle for parents and famlies but there are a hell of a lot more which can be done for children who are on the spectrum when those who have downs.
I know I already have a child who is on the autism spectrum and that is another factor into why I would make that choice.

Blisterman

alex73 wrote: »

But Legalised abortion is a ploy by the state to avoid disabled children being born, in the UK over 90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted.

No they're not! The actual statistic is 90% of fetuese tested positive for Down syndrome are aborted, which is a hugely different statistic, as it's unlikely you'd subject yourself to testing unless you were likely to have an abortion.

texidub

@alex73, Gotcha. But I try not to judge others for thinking differently to me. (The stupid fools *cackles* )

Seriously though, I don't see anything incompatible between choosing not to abort and tolerating other people's decisions. No need for me to be absolutist about my actions and beliefs...

alex73

Blisterman wrote: »

No they're not! The actual statistic is 90% of fetuese tested positive for Down syndrome are aborted, which is a hugely different statistic, as it's unlikely you'd subject yourself to testing unless you were likely to have an abortion.

Look... the test is run of the mill for Women in the UK. its not offered in Ireland because there (thanfully) is no abortion, but you can get it done in certain hospitals.

During our 2nd Pregnancy Doctors said due to a illness my wife had that our baby would probably be deformed. They offered if we wanted to have tests done. Obviously we didn't bother, we were still going to have her anyway. Baby turned out to be fine, she had large red birthmarks everywhere, which did make my wife Cry. She is 5 today, Perfectly normal, and the marks are nearly gone except for a small one on her arm.

In the UK she would have been advised to terminate. Its a fact.

Da Shins Kelly

I'd be fairly libertarian, so I wouldn't really object to someone aborting a baby on the grounds of Down's. At the end of the day, it's the parent's right to choose, and I'm a staunch believer in people's right to choose what's best for themselves. If a couple really don't believe that they could cope with a Down's Syndrome child, I don't really see why they should be condemned for doing what they think is best for themselves and their future child. There are people who would never abort their child no matter what, however some people can't deal with it. There are very serious moral issues surrounding aborting a disabled child, and also around raising one (who looks after the child after the parents are gone, what sort of quality of life is the child going to have, etc.). It's a very serious issue, and wouldn't be inclined to judge anyone who is on either side of the fence.

alex73

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I'd be fairly libertarian, so I wouldn't really object to someone aborting a baby on the grounds of Down's. At the end of the day, it's the parent's right to choose, and I'm a staunch believer in people's right to choose what's best for themselves. If a couple really don't believe that they could cope with a Down's Syndrome child, I don't really see why they should be condemned for doing what they think is best for themselves and their future child. There are people who would never abort their child no matter what, however some people can't deal with it. There are very serious moral issues surrounding aborting a disabled child, and also around raising one (who looks after the child after the parents are gone, what sort of quality of life is the child going to have, etc.). It's a very serious issue, and wouldn't be inclined to judge anyone who is on either side of the fence.

You make a Downs Syndrome person look like an idiot. Many lead long independent lives, they are no locked up in institutions any more.

Also if you want to be a parent, its not "Themselves" its about loving the child, no matter who comes.

The only choice I offer Parents is weather or not they want to have kids or not. If you want kids, be ready to accept the Good, Bad or ugly.

Blisterman

alex73 wrote: »

Look... the test is run of the mill for Women in the UK. its not offered in Ireland because there (thanfully) is no abortion, but you can get it done in certain hospitals.

Well according to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/27/downs-syndrome-babies-motherhood
There were 1,843 diagnoses of Down's syndrome in England and Wales in 2007-2008 and 743 live births. Even assuming that every one of those diagnosed but not born were aborted. the actual rate is ~60% Far lower than 90%.