Would you abort a child with Down Syndrome?

alex73

Blisterman wrote: »

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%.

90% or 60%. according to above 1100 Babies were aborted. And some around 24 weeks. these are usually families who want a Child,,, but just don't want THAT child. It Shows the lack of value the UK society places on a Child that is not "Normal".

texidub

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wish there was a thumbs down option.

I wish I could fly. What's your point though?

CathyMoran

As I have said before I got the nuchal scan but one of the biggest things that I was scared of was that if the child had downs they would have a greater chance of miscarriage.

texidub

CathyMoran wrote: »

As I have said before I got the nuchal scan but one of the biggest things that I was scared of was that if the child had downs they would have a greater chance of miscarriage.

I didn't know there was a greater chance of miscarriage with DS. Must be scary to be in that position.

Don't think anyone could give out to someone for having the scan, could they? I mean, what sort of parents wouldn't want to know as much as possible about their baby as soon as possible? Doesn't necessarily even have to lead into an abortion debate (although of course it does).

very

as hard as it would be to do, i think i would. But if i actually went through it im not sure. I mean, nobody really gets hurt

Da Shins Kelly

alex73 wrote: »

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.

I don't think they're "idiots", don't put words in my mouth.

I know people who are raising children with Down's, I have a close friend whose younger sister has Down's. They are getting along fine, but have expressed worry about the child's future. I did not suggest that they would be locked up in institutions. There's more to a quality of life than just being able to live independently. My friend has on numerous occasions expressed her deep worry that her sister will not be accepted socially at school, for example. It's not just about being independent. There's more to life than that, for everyone.

Also, of course being a parent is about loving the child. However, some people may feel that they are doing the best thing by aborting a Down's child. Some people can't cope, and if someone feels that they can't give a Down's child the best quality of life then, in my opinion, they are doing an even greater disservice to that child if they choose to have it and give it a shambolic upbringing. That's not even getting to the fact that there are some people who do not plan to get pregnant, but through accident end up in that situation.

I find the tone of your messages extremely crass, by the way.

The Princess Bride

Am curious as to why OP choose Down's Syndrome in the thread and not any one of the other hundred's of syndromes- some of which are more life/living limiting than Down's syndrome.

alex73

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I don't think they're "idiots", don't put words in my mouth.

I know people who are raising children with Down's, I have a close friend whose younger sister has Down's. They are getting along fine, but have expressed worry about the child's future. I did not suggest that they would be locked up in institutions. There's more to a quality of life than just being able to live independently. My friend has on numerous occasions expressed her deep worry that her sister will not be accepted socially at school, for example. It's not just about being independent. There's more to life than that, for everyone.

Also, of course being a parent is about loving the child. However, some people may feel that they are doing the best thing by aborting a Down's child. Some people can't cope, and if someone feels that they can't give a Down's child the best quality of life then, in my opinion, they are doing an even greater disservice to that child if they choose to have it and give it a shambolic upbringing. That's not even getting to the fact that there are some people who do not plan to get pregnant, but through accident end up in that situation.

I find the tone of your messages extremely crass, by the way.

People can't coup with a disabled child.. Poor things.. Solution pass a law allowing them to abort the child, remove the real instrinsic objective value of this child.

Aborting them is an insult, its wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIcbFrt4F_c&sns=em

p1akuw47h5r3it

In my opinion abortion being illegal is an attack on the liberties of citizens of a whatever country in question. Therefore I believe abortion should be legal. I think it is up to individual people to have the choice, if some people feel abortion is wrong, if ever pregnant they should simply not have an abortion.

CerebralCortex

texidub wrote: »

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I wish there was a thumbs down option.

I wish I could fly. What's your point though?

It would be nice to know whether people like prinz and alex73 are representative of the majority. I sincerely hope they're not.

silverharp

It can only be the parents choice. Who's opinion matters more, the parents who have thought about the consequences for the next 50 years or some randomer who has an "opinion" but gets to move on with their life. We had the test done but it wasnt an issue, but yes we would have aborted if a serious genetic issue was discovered.

vibe666

i've always been pro-choice as far as abortion goes and i had also always maintained that i wasn't a strong enough person to be able to cope with bringing up a child with disabilities and that if & when my wife became pregnant that we would need to look at the possibility of an abortion if something bad showed up in scans.

the morning that all changed was the morning my wife handed me the pregnancy test that showed she was pregnant. she was only 6-8 weeks at that stage, but it didn't matter one little bit that the baby was only the size of a pip, it was our child and that was the end of it.

we decided there and then that this tiny little insignificant thing was our child and we wee going to do everything in our power to love and care for him/ her no matter what.

as of right now, we have a wonderful, healthy 3 week old boy who is perfect in every way and we are so grateful every single day for that, but i know now that even if he had any physical or mental disabilities showing up in any of the scans or tests before he was born that it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to how much we love him.

for me at least, what you think you'd do when you become a parent and what you will actually do when you are a parent (even of a tiny little foetus) are two very different things because the inception of your parenthood changes your mindset so completely.

vibe666

CerebralCortex wrote: »

It would be nice to know whether people like prinz and alex73 are representative of the majority. I sincerely hope they're not.

alex73 wasn't actually serious in his first post in the thread. did you read his 2nd one directly below it?

alex73 wrote: »

See my thread on this topic..http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056324984

By the way I have highest respect for anyone with the condition. They are amazing, loving and careing.

prinz

rarnes1 wrote: »

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.

It's only a matter of timing, and some mental gymnastics to convince yourself it's somehow totally different. Look at the arguments.... the resources people with disabilities take up, certain people are less worthy of life, personhood depends on full consciousness... what's different about that and Nazi's Aktion T4 and saying 'certain people wouldn't have x quality of life therefore it's ok to kill them'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4

Once again the only difference is a matter of timing.

very wrote: »

as hard as it would be to do, i think i would. But if i actually went through it im not sure. I mean, nobody really gets hurt

Unborn child not get hurt no? Or are we back to the 'it's not really a person' line of thought?

DanDan6592 wrote: »

In my opinion abortion being illegal is an attack on the liberties of citizens of a whatever country in question. Therefore I believe abortion should be legal. I think it is up to individual people to have the choice, if some people feel abortion is wrong, if ever pregnant they should simply not have an abortion.

What happens to the liberties of the unborn? They don't count? I think torture is wrong, now I could simply not torture anybody but is that a good enough reason not to object to it being legalised? I belueve the death penalty is wrong... do I throw my hands in the air and say 'ah well, I won't be executing anyone personally, so it's all good'....or am I allowed to have an opinion on the society's approach?

F.A.

I note that nobody mentioned yesterday's news about the utter lack of support for disabled children when it comes to education. RTE interviewed two mothers whose children have Down Syndrome - and their children will only be getting one lesson a day. One mother even reported how difficult the family's life has been, how they keep hoping it'll get better - but how it just doesn't.

It's very easy to be up in arms against parents deciding to abort a child because of disability - but where exactly is the support these children (and their parents) in particular need?? Typical hypocrisy: intervene when it suits and is cheap (no abortion), let them fight on their own when it doesn't and isn't (education). Makes me sick to the stomach.

Asphyxia

I worked with children with Special Needs for a good few years and I can honestly say I wouldn't be able to abort them. They are so loving and just because they need some extra care doesn't mean they can't live a life like you or me they are still human beings after all.

Da Shins Kelly

alex73 wrote: »

Aborting them is an insult, its wrong.

Interfering with people's right to choose what they do with their own bodies and lives because you can't get down off your high horse is an insult and is wrong.

CathyMoran

Asphyxia wrote: »

I worked with children with Special Needs for a good few years and I can honestly say I wouldn't be able to abort them. They are so loving and just because they need some extra care doesn't mean they can't live a life like you or me they are still human beings after all.

When I was a young girl one of my friends had Downs Syndrome - I must admit that it has affected my views ever since.

catch me if you can

No i wouldnt. I lost my precious unborn baby to a miscarriage. If he or she were here now alive and had downs i would be proudest mother ever.

alex73

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Interfering with people's right to choose what they do with their own bodies and lives because you can't get down off your high horse is an insult and is wrong.

If it was only "their" body it would be fine. it would be their decision. Deciding to end another childs lifes is immoral.

pa4

Absolutely not. I don't care what anybody else says but abortion to me is murder. Nobody has the right to kill another human being. I agree with alex73, deciding to end another humans life is completely immortal. The fact that abortions is even legal in the UK sickens me.

itac

I honestly think that this is a decision that people will really only cope with if it ever happens to them. Personally, I don't think I could have an abortion, be the child healthy and just arriving at a bad time in my life, or if the child has DS/something else. That's just me though, and that could change.

My older sister Bairbre has Downs. There are so many times in her life that she has wished she hadn't been "afflicted" (her words...) or born with it. There are many times in my life where I've wished for her not to have been born with it. There are still times when I want a big sister I can go out on the town with, one who people don't mistake me as a carer for, a sister I didn't have to "babysit" when I was a teenager, a sister who could have a boyfriend (or a girlfriend if she'd wanted!), who could've had kids....I wanted, and still want, so much in life for her.

Yet, had she been born without Downs, then I, and my family's life would've been so different. Sometimes, it's felt like she's the glue that keeps us all together, she's so honest about her emotions, if she's sad or teary, she'll just come right out with it. If she's annoyed, she'll swear like a trooper, and lose the head. If she's happy, or she gets a fit of giggles, it's one of the funniest sounds and sights, and it lifts my soul every time. She's unintentionally taught me patience, love, kindness....basically...how to live!

As several posters have said, it's difficult to generalise people with Downs, as there can be so many different mental levels of maturity for people born with it. My sister can seem like 12 year old some days, mood pending, and other times, she can be the 32 year old she actually is.

From a parental perspective....when she was born, she was baptised then and there, as they thought she wouldn't make it. She almost died several times as a young child, with my Dad having to resuscitate her on the bed once. She had a stroke over ten years ago, and that really slowed her up a lot mentally, although physically she's in ok form. But my parents aged overnight that day, and I wouldn't wish what they've had to go through with her in life on anyone. They are amazing people.

We're lucky in that she's pretty self-sufficient, but it's only natural to worry what she'll do when they're gone, and I guess it's something that everyone who has someone dependent on them has to worry about. I often say I wouldn't change her for the world, but I also often wonder would she say the same about herself?

Anyhoo, them's my (very long-winded!) two cents....

alex73

@ itac Post #123. Well if your parents had aborted her, all the love you have described above and its post and he life would never have existed. Thousand of Kids are other conditions, its life.

seenitall

My biggest fear is that, as a mother, I actually wouldn't emotionally be able to abort a Down's syndrome foetus. This is because I am guessing I would find it impossible to abort after 12 weeks gestation, and very very tough even anything after 8 weeks (up to 8 weeks it is still an embryo AFAIK).

Hmmm... before (seeing the way the thread has gone) the religious people chime in with "why, what's the difference, a life is a life no matter how old, killing is always wrong" etc - how shall I put this politely? - I don't give a rat's behind about your views on right and wrong, so you might as well save yourselves the effort.

MagicMarker

You may as well change the title of the thread to ''Would you have an abortion''. It's no coincidence that the pro choice folk would be understanding of someone aborting a child in this situation and it's no coincidence that the pro life side wouldn't.

Personally, I'm pro choice and wouldn't think bad of someone who makes that decision, as for whether I'd do it myself? I don't know, maybe, maybe not.

Rev Hellfire

MagicMarker wrote: »

You may as well change the title of the thread to ''Would you have an abortion''. It's no coincidence that the pro choice folk would be understanding of someone aborting a child in this situation and it's no coincidence that the pro life side wouldn't.

I'm not sure it is, I wonder how many of the those who would abort an "disabled child" would support aborting based on solely on gender. I suspect you'll find it's not as clear cut as pro and against in such a case.

D1stant

pa4 wrote: »

Absolutely not. I don't care what anybody else says but abortion to me is murder. Nobody has the right to kill another human being. I agree with alex73, deciding to end another humans life is completely immortal. The fact that abortions is even legal in the UK sickens me.

Oh no it isnt

kev9100

I like to think I wouldn't, but I don't think anyone really knows until they're in that situation. It really would be a heart wrenching decision.

JyesusChrist

I think I would. The child could never have a full life so is ther any point?

Zombrex

I would abort, it seems cruel not to.

Imagine someone said "Have sex today you will produce a baby with DS, have sex tomorrow you won't". I would have sex tomorrow. Anyone who would say I'll have sex today who am I to stop this DS baby being born is just acting selfishly in my opinion.

I get that the religious types think the person already exists. But that is frankly nonsense as far as I'm concerned. The issue is not destroy a person who already exists but not bringing them into existence in the first place. And if you had a chance to prevent a person with Downs from exiting I would take it.

So often with these types of things it seems more about making the parents feel better (oh look at how tolerant we are! look at how supportive we are!) than considerations for the child.

BlastedGlute

Humans trying to decide what THEY would like to do balanced with the projected opinions of other humans about what to do with an unborn human. It's all so messy and figurative. I could never make such a decision without feeling at least a little bit screwed over either way I go.


Vasectomy.

Feels good.

Bassfish

I have read this thread start to finish. I'm not going to comment on the opinions of other people and i am not adressing the debate of abortion in general, i'm just going to put my point of view across about the specific topic the OP wrote about.

I worked as a social care worker with people with disabilities for six years up until earlier this year. I've worked with dozens of people with disabilities, many of whom have Down's syndrome. In my work, the people i have met with Down's syndrome have been some of the most likeable, funny, caring and level-headed people i have ever met in my life. Many of them are pillars of their communities and lead fulfilling and busy lives.
The notion that a baby would be aborted for the singular reason of having Down's syndrome is shocking, offensive and sickening to me and makes me wonder has humanity really come any further since the holocaust, where people who incompatible with powerful peoples' notion of a perfect race were exterminated. That was eugenics, the idea of legitimising the aborting of babies with Down's syndrome is also eugenics.
I think of the people whom i worked who have Down's and find it inconceivable that
they could have less of a right to live their lives than i do.

Here's food for thought, the words burden and hardship have been mentioned in this thread in relation to people with Down's. Who has been a bigger burden on Irish society or has caused more hardship in recent times than high level bankers? Why don't we develop a test that can measure the potential mathematical abilties of a small child and if it above a certain level, have them systematically killed just in case they use their mathematical ability to go in to the world of business and could possibley grow up to be bankers?
Ridiculous isn't it? impossible and stupid and insanely ignorant isn't it? Yes it is, but in my opinion, no more so than the idea of aborting a child with Down's syndrome.

prinz

Zombrex wrote: »

I get that the religious types think the person already exists. But that is frankly nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

It's a lot more than the 'religious types', the scientific, medical, and legal worlds could use your decisiveness on what is nonsense and what isn't.

Zombrex wrote: »

The issue is not destroy a person who already exists but not bringing them into existence in the first place. And if you had a chance to prevent a person with Downs from exiting I would take it.

Abortion is a bit late for that. They already exist. Abortion is not the same thing as turning the clock back and pretending nothing has happened.

Zombrex wrote: »

So often with these types of things it seems more about making the parents feel better (oh look at how tolerant we are! look at how supportive we are!) than considerations for the child.

Indeed, the vast majority of reasons provided by people who have abortions have more to do with the parent(s) than considerations for the child.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

seenitall

prinz wrote: »

It's a lot more than the 'religious types', the scientific, medical, and legal worlds could use your decisiveness on what is nonsense and what isn't.

Abortion is a bit late for that. They already exist.

Or, alternatively, they could use your decisiveness on when a person comes into existence, no?

prinz

seenitall wrote: »

Or, alternatively, they could use your decisiveness on when a person comes into existence, no?

They could, but then again I'm not the one writing off a vast body of differing opinion from a huge range of disciplines the work of one 'type' in a ham-fisted attempt to undermine it as if it was the position only of some fringe element to be ignored.

seenitall

Good stuff, prinz. I'm glad your conscience is clear on the topic of writing off a vast body of differing opinion from a huge range of disciplines as the work of one 'type' in a ham-fisted attempt to undermine it as if it was the position only of some fringe element to be ignored.

However, contrary to writing anything off (and especially since coming to Ireland, as you can imagine), I have given the subject of abortion a lot of thought and some research as well, and am consequently very happy to go along with the views and policies as displayed and applied in the vast majority of the first world countries (as far as I can tell from considering such a broad canvas).

I also think that it is worth mentioning that I haven't yet personally met a pro-lifer who wasn't either religious themselves, or been raised in a religious environment. I'm sure that your experience differs from mine.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

It's a lot more than the 'religious types', the scientific, medical, and legal worlds could use your decisiveness on what is nonsense and what isn't.

Ok... I get that religious types and others think the person etc.

prinz wrote: »

Abortion is a bit late for that. They already exist.

No they don't. All that exists is the body, the cells, the person does not exit yet and won't exist until the high functions of the brain activate.

prinz wrote: »

Abortion is not the same thing as turning the clock back and pretending nothing has happened.

No, it is stopping things before they happen. If you stop the development of the fetus before the person has been created then you have not destroyed a person.

prinz wrote: »

Indeed, the vast majority of reasons provided by people who have abortions have more to do with the parent(s) than considerations for the child.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

They all seem like pretty good reasons not to create a child.

minidazzler

I have a sister in a wheelchair, I have been her carer for 6 years. It's extremely difficult and painful. I am not having any kid that will have to go through similar.

prinz

Zombrex wrote: »

No they don't. All that exists is the body, the cells, the person does not exit yet and won't exist until the high functions of the brain activate.

Another one from the 'high brain function' creates the person school of thought. Good to know those who suffer brain injuries lose part of their identity as a person with rights as well as everything else.

Zombrex wrote: »

No, it is stopping things before they happen. If you stop the development of the fetus before the person has been created then you have not destroyed a person.

Your definition of what makes a person is completely arbitrary and not used AFAIK as a factor in determining time frames for abortion in any jurisdiction. Using 'high brain function' in order to determine whether a foetus is a person is about as useful as using the appearance of distinct fingers as the basis for declaring it a person.

Zombrex wrote: »

They all seem like pretty good reasons not to create a child.

So it's ok to abort a child for the 'benefit' of the parents but not keep it for the same reason?

THENORTHSIDER

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.[/QUOTE]


I think they are as I can't imagine anyone having that mentality:cool:

paddyandy

iT can haunt you later on in life.Think carefully.

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

Another one from the 'high brain function' creates the person school of thought. Good to know those who suffer brain injuries lose part of their identity as a person with rights as well as everything else.

Yes, it is called permeant vegetative state, and we turn off the life support machines, irrespective of how healthy the rest of the body is.

prinz wrote: »

Your definition of what makes a person is completely arbitrary and not used AFAIK as a factor in determining time frames for abortion in any jurisdiction.

It is not arbitrary at all, it is in fact the only non-arbitrary definition of a person I've ever heard, since it is focused around the element of the life form that is universally agreed to be valuable (the person).

Saying it starts at conception because we are guessing that is when the soul enters the body, now that is arbitrary.

prinz wrote: »

Using 'high brain function' in order to determine whether a foetus is a person is about as useful as using the appearance of distinct fingers as the basis for declaring it a person.

Er, you might want to tell that to someone who has lost an arm. You still consider them a person. Why? Because they still have a personality. Where does that exist? Oh thats right, in their brain.

prinz wrote: »

So it's ok to abort a child for the 'benefit' of the parents but not keep it for the same reason?

It isn't for the benefit of the parents, it is for the benefit of the child. Why bring a child into existence just so that they can be raised by unloving parents resentful that they exist? Why would you choose that for anyone?

The Corinthian

There's a lot of people alive today who should not be.

By that I mean that a plethora of genetic conditions that would have once doomed a child to a short life are now no longer life-threatening. A person born with trisomy 21 would have been unlikely to survive long many years ago due to heart, thyroid and gastrointestinal issues that are associated with the condition, but today are far more likely to live long, or longer, lives.

However there is a price to this. Persons born with trisomy 21 and other severe genetic conditions typically will require medical and financial support for their entire lives. There is no 'leaving the nest' for them and their parents will effectively be trapped caring for them until they die. Other than the commitment of such a burden, there are implications to any other children they may have; resources that would have otherwise gone into eduction, medical care or even basic essentials, will end up diverted to deal with this burden, which then would end up being passed on to the siblings when the parents die. All this will add to the pressures of physical and mental well-being and can contribute to earlier deaths for parents and siblings of such persons.

On a macroeconomic level, care for such persons ultimately takes up state resources, and in a World of finite resources this means that other areas will have to suffer. In the end, another budget will end up having to be cut so that they may be cared for and as a result someone else along the line will suffer and likely die because the cracks in the system caused by such cuts will be that little bit wider.

Then of course there is the question of eugenics. With trisomy 21, this is not as big an issue as most have low fertility rates or are sterile, however there are many other severe genetic conditions that produce fertile people, who can in turn pass on the condition to an new generation in time. There is a cost to this too.

Of course, this does not mean that we should euthanase on those suffering from trisomy 21 or other severe genetic disorders. As some have pointed out not all sufferers of trisomy 21 are doomed to a life of dependence and can be relatively productive within society. Additionally we should not forget that there is a real danger when we begin to judge who is viable within society and who should be classified as Lebensunwertes Leben that it can turn out quite nasty for a lot of us.

However, I did think it important to point out that it's not as simple a choice as the life or death of one person. There is a price to be paid and somewhere along the line someone is going to die sooner than they otherwise would, no matter what happens.

prinz

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not arbitrary at all, it is in fact the only non-arbitrary definition of a person I've ever heard, since it is focused around the element of the life form that is universally agreed to be valuable (the person).

So just what level of brain function gives you your right to as a person?

Zombrex wrote: »

Saying it starts at conception because we are guessing that is when the soul enters the body, now that is arbitrary.

Who mentioned a soul? I certainly haven't.

Zombrex wrote: »

Er, you might want to tell that to someone who has lost an arm. You still consider them a person. Why? Because they still have a personality. Where does that exist? Oh thats right, in their brain.

So personality is the determining factor now? Somebody tell Pat Kenny quick. He's not a person anymore. Does a two day old baby have a personality? Maybe it's just me but I don't consider people who have had brain injuries for example to have forfeited their status as human beings.

Zombrex wrote: »

It isn't for the benefit of the parents, it is for the benefit of the child.

Ah that old nugget. It's for your own good. The same reasoning used by many a murderer over the years, if it's not accepted as valid reasoning to kill a toddler "for it's benefit" I don't see why it should be accepted at any stage.

Zombrex wrote: »

Why bring a child into existence just so that they can be raised by unloving parents resentful that they exist? Why would you choose that for anyone?

Why choose a horrible death for anyone? Why choose the existence of the people who have survived botched abortion procedures?

Boskowski

It's a tricky subject and on the whole it's got do to with how we evolve as a species in my opinion.
I think very little can be argued against the fact that only through our advanced technological abilities babies with severe disabilities have an actual life expectancy. Not so long ago most of those babies would have not lived to see their first birthday in any case. Loved or wanted or not.
The same technologies also allow us to alter other parameters around our physical existence. They allow us to live longer, they allow us to correct birth defects, they allow us to grow stronger and they also allow us to have a peek into a mothers womb to have a look what's happening there.
Those technologies have become part of mans physical evolution.
One may argue then why not follow through and it seems that's what's happening to some extent.

On the other hand we have also evolved socially and modern social structures provide shelter from the harsh realities of a hostile environment and we as individuals do no longer rely on physical and mental excellence to have a place in society. People with severe disabilities can now contribute to society and the evolution of man whereas 1000 years ago that would have been virtually impossible.

Now I'm no expert on the matter but there are conditions amongst foetuses/newborns that are far more severe than DS. There is births of malformed lumps not remotely resembling a human with only half a brain and whatnot. Now thats not very nice reading and I feel awful for even writing this but thats the reality unfortunately.

What I'm getting at is that we're already drawing a line 'somewhere' if you like.

Whereas previously nature - the demands on surviving in a hostile environment - would have drawn that line for us technological and social evolution is putting us into that sticky position where we now have to draw that line for ourselves.

I believe there is two options for that.
We either let the parents decide or else we as a race attempt a rational answer to this question.
I don't think attempting a rational answer is the way to go, because ultimately it is down to deciding what is 'worth' keeping and what not. I don't think we have evolved enough yet to even attempt to answer such a question and we can only dig a hole for ourselves if we tried to. We're just not 'god' yet.

Therefore let the decision be made as close to the problem as possible. Let the parents decide whether they see themselves fit to provide a dignified and loving upbringing just like with 'normal' abortion cases.

One thing I'm pretty sure about though is it's certainly not the space for any dogmatic or religious battlefields. For people who simply 'know' the answer 'because'...

badgerbaiter

kill the demon!!

paky

i wouldnt think twice about it

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

So just what level of brain function gives you your right to as a person?

Well firstly it doesn't give you the right. You either are a person or you are not a person. I think we all agree a dead person doesn't have rights, not because these rights have been removed from the person, but because the person themselves doesn't exist any more. Same before the person existed.

As for what level of brain function, that is a very good question. I'm not an expert in the field by any means, but from what I've read higher functionality that form the basis of personality and memory start forming after about the 22nd week. So I would air on the side of caution and restrict abortion to before this period, maybe even before 20th week to be safe.

prinz wrote: »

Who mentioned a soul? I certainly haven't.

There is another less arbitrary reason for picking conception?

prinz wrote: »

So personality is the determining factor now? Somebody tell Pat Kenny quick. He's not a person anymore.

So a person who has lost an arm is dead to your mind?

prinz wrote: »

Does a two day old baby have a personality?

Yes. They have approx 10 billion neural pathways that define that baby as distinct from any other baby. It is why one baby looks at a patch at the sky and another baby looks at the dog running by. This is brain activity. An arm is an arm. A leg is a leg. Swap them out they are irrelevant to who the person is. Replace my arm with a transplanted one I'm still "me". Replace my face with a transplanted one I'm still me.

If you replaced my brain with someone else's brain I would be them, not me. Personhood is contained in the brain. You could replace every part of my body bar my brain and I would continue to be "me".

prinz wrote: »

Maybe it's just me but I don't consider people who have had brain injuries for example to have forfeited their status as human beings.

Good. Neither do I.

prinz wrote: »

Ah that old nugget. It's for your own good. The same reasoning used by many a murderer over the years, if it's not accepted as valid reasoning to kill a toddler "for it's benefit" I don't see why it should be accepted at any stage.

LOL. So when I say to my wife or girlfriend we shouldn't have a baby until we are financially stable, for the good of the baby, I'm a murderer now, am I?

prinz wrote: »

Why choose a horrible death for anyone?

That is a very good question. Why would anyone bring someone into existence just so they can suffer and die. Far better that the person never existed in the first place, don't you think?

childminderxx

to tell you the truth, yes i would abort a DS baby. At the end their going to be living hard lives, they die at a young age. Could you really see yourself losing a child before you die? would feel guilty but its not fair.
but if there are people trying for babies and after their 15th miscarriage find out their going to have a DS baby than yes im sure they'd keep the baby..

harr

childminderxx wrote: »

to tell you the truth, yes i would abort a DS baby. At the end their going to be living hard lives, they die at a young age. Could you really see yourself losing a child before you die? would feel guilty but its not fair.
but if there are people trying for babies and after their 15th miscarriage find out their going to have a DS baby than yes im sure they'd keep the baby..

Not all die young,any down syndrome child born today can expect to live into there 60's and most dont live any harder lives than the rest of us do..Many other syndromes and conditions have a lot lower life span than DS.