Surrogate left with 1 twin by couple as the boy has Downs, so only took the girl

Piliger

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Just in case it disappears, here is the post in question.
The list of reasons to abort a baby, including. unbelievably, gum disease. Followed by the assertion that the "smart, caring" option is to kill the baby before it has a chance to develop, well, gun disease.

The more you post the more you dig. Keep digging.

Shakespeare's Sister

Grayson wrote: »

Was this a special home. In say Tuam?

No, south Dublin.

Piliger

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

The average DS baby has a range of these issues. The serious heart conditions being a big one.

No one is suggesting a baby be aborted because of potential gum disease. Strawman argument.

Indeed. A woman should need no 'excuse' to remove an unwanted pregnancy from her body anyway.

Hotfail.com

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Just in case it disappears, here is the post in question.
The list of reasons to abort a baby, including. unbelievably, gum disease. Followed by the assertion that the "smart, caring" option is to kill the baby before it has a chance to develop, well, gun disease.

This is probably the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on here. Just pick the least severe problem and ignore the rest.

Note that it's including gum disease.

mrsbyrne

Piliger wrote: »

The more you post the more you dig. Keep digging.

Your obviously trolling.
You have no argument.
In what way am i "digging "(Sits back , waits for answer that never materialises)

mrsbyrne

Hotfail.com wrote: »

This is probably the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on here. Just pick the least severe problem and ignore the rest.

Note that it's including gum disease.

So you also agree with the posters assertion that my parents and all the other parents were stupid and uncaring not to kill their babies.
You must agree. Why else would you ignore the assertion?

Piliger

Hotfail.com wrote: »

This is probably the most ridiculous post I've ever seen on here. Just pick the least severe problem and ignore the rest.

Good post. Isn't this just standard troll tactics ? A worthwhile thread dragged down to it's lowest common denominator.

AlanS181824

Some of the opinions on here seem so extreme IMO....

From looking at the pictures he seems like an adorable little baba, his parents don't deserve a child as cute as him.

All over Carlow there are people with Down's Syndrome working in good jobs which is a lot more than can be said for the majority of the population!

They can live happy, healthy lives.

I wish that little guy and his Mam all the very best.

shruikan2553

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Shruikan you feel free st any stage to jump in and defend my parents or any of the parents out there who decided not to kill their baby because there was a chance it might develop gum disease. That might be a way for you to disprove my allegation that you think people with DS are unfit for society.

So you can't prove it and want me to prove you are wrong and then when somebody else says something about you then they must provide the proof.
Nobody is killing babies, nobody is killing anyone for gum disease. It is selectively taking parts and forming them in a way to make yourself feel morally superior. A person listed out a series of problems and you pick one or 2 of the less serious problems that suit you.

Cantremember

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Your obviously trolling.
You have no argument.
In what way am i "digging "(Sits back , waits for answer that never materialises)

Your "argument" has been repeatedly gutted. If you can't see it, too bad.

takamichinoku

Dude, stop going on about the gum disease and singling out one issue as if the rest aren't there. Yer man was bang in the wrong to say "the smart thing to do" so authoritatively and you're right to be annoyed but that's not what people are taking issue with from your posts.

Edit: Also think people are perhaps responding a bit overly blunt to you considering you do have a pretty big emotional involvement in the topic that they don't.

mrsbyrne

Piliger wrote: »

Good post. Isn't this just standard troll tactics ? A worthwhile thread dragged down to it's lowest common denominator.

And what have your contributions to the thread been? Criticising the posts of others? I think we all know who the troll is and its not me.
Another point I wish to make.
If you Piliger and shruikan and hotfail get a combination of any of the "conditions" in the "smart, caring" post, I presume you want your loved ones to euthanize you without delay as ,obviously, its the "smart, caring" thing to do?

mrsbyrne

Cantremember wrote: »

Your "argument" has been repeatedly gutted. If you can't see it, too bad.

Once again , unless you are another troll, point out to me where who and how my argument has been "gutted".

mrsbyrne

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So you can't prove it and want me to prove you are wrong and then when somebody else says something about you then they must provide the proof.
Nobody is killing babies, nobody is killing anyone for gum disease. It is selectively taking parts and forming them in a way to make yourself feel morally superior. A person listed out a series of problems and you pick one or 2 of the less serious problems that suit you.

And you continue to ignore his "smart,caring" point which conclusively proves that you agree with him. And yes aborting a DS baby is killing a baby. Them having DS does not relegate them to the standard of some sort of subspecies.

shruikan2553

mrsbyrne wrote: »

And what have your contributions to the thread been? Criticising the posts of others? I think we all know who the troll is and its not me.
Another point I wish to make.
If you Piliger and shruikan and hotfail get a combination of any of the "conditions" in the "smart, caring" post, I presume you want your loved ones to euthanize you without delay as ,obviously, its the "smart, caring" thing to do?

I would probably go to the dentist for the gum disease. Euthanasia tends to be used for terminal, painful medical problems

mrsbyrne

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I would probably go to the dentist for the gum disease. Euthanasia tends to be used for terminal, painful medical problems

You won't be going to any dentist if you have gum disease celiac disease and heart problems ,will you? No point in wasting our valuable resources on a dud like you. One quick shot in the arm and off you go into nothingness.
Sure, its the caring, smart thing to do.

Cantremember

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Once again , unless you are another troll, point out to me where who and how my argument has been "gutted".

No. It's blatantly obvious where it was done.

Hotfail.com

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So you also agree with the posters assertion that my parents and all the other parents were stupid and uncaring not to kill their babies.
You must agree. Why else would you ignore the assertion?

If the parents think that the child will have more severe problems than gum disease, which is highly likely in the case of Down Syndrome kids, then I believe it's their prerogative to choose to abort the baby if they believe it will save themselves a lot of hardship, or if it will save the child from a difficult life of illness and pain. It's their choice and we shouldn't be critical of whatever decision they make.

I don't think they're stupid or uncaring for not getting an abortion, just as I wouldn't consider getting an abortion to be the smart, caring thing to do. It's their choice, it's an undesirable situation to be in, and I don't think we should be throwing labels around at people who choose whether to get an abortion or not.

Grayson

takamichinoku wrote: »

Dude, stop going on about the gum disease and singling out one issue as if the rest aren't there. Yer man was bang in the wrong to say "the smart thing to do" so authoritatively and you're right to be annoyed but that's not what people are taking issue with from your posts.

Edit: Also think people are perhaps responding a bit overly blunt to you considering you do have a pretty big emotional involvement in the topic that they don't.

See, mrsbyrne is incredibly anti abortion. Now, i believe it's possible to be anti abortion and keep it rational, but mrsbyrne is the kind of person who latches onto some of the more ridiculous arguments. the kind of person that would say aborting a terminally ill foetus when the mothers life is in danger is the same as terminating one with a cleft palate. Or in this case gum disease. (I can't believe the discussion has dropped that low).
Even though this has an emotive attachment because of the DS element, mrsbyrne would probably be arguing the exact same side.

shruikan2553

mrsbyrne wrote: »

You won't be going to any dentist if you have gum disease celiac disease and heart problems ,will you? No point in wasting our valuable resources on a dud like you. One quick shot in the arm and off you go into nothingness.
Sure, its the caring, smart thing to do.

Nah. Different doctors cover that. Will see what my health insurance covers. Then it depends on family situation, life assurance, quality of life etc.

I wouldn't want to put my children in debt for the rest of their lives just so I can be in pain for another few years.

mickydoomsux

mrsbyrne wrote: »

You won't be going to any dentist if you have gum disease celiac disease and heart problems ,will you? No point in wasting our valuable resources on a dud like you. One quick shot in the arm and off you go into nothingness.
Sure, its the caring, smart thing to do.

All of those are treatable/preventable conditions.

We know what the prevention for DS is but you are very much against it. What's the treatment for it? How many DS sufferers have 'gotten better'?

genericguy

mrsbyrne wrote: »

You won't be going to any dentist if you have gum disease celiac disease and heart problems ,will you? No point in wasting our valuable resources on a dud like you. One quick shot in the arm and off you go into nothingness.
Sure, its the caring, smart thing to do.

Holy ****, you've wrecked any credibility you might have had there. It was very efficiently done though. Fair play to you.

robman60

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

I dont really see how the couple are bad people here as I agree with the fact that if downs or other sever mental or physical illness is detected early the pregnancy should be aborted. Its actually pretty much one of the only scenarios where I agree with abortion.

This is another scenario where someone breaks a contract or similar because of a religious belief and then tries to play victem due to the results of their own decisions

There lies the problem though. Down Syndrome is often not detected until the 20 week scan as far as I know. That's why the UK allows abortion until birth if the child is disabled. I suspect many of the people who "support" abortion on the basis of abnormality such as Downs would be horrified with how developed the child actually is when it's aborted.

genericguy

robman60 wrote: »

There lies the problem though. Down Syndrome is often not detected until the 20 week scan as far as I know. That's why the UK allows abortion until birth if the child is disabled. I suspect many of the people who "support" abortion on the basis of abnormality such as Downs would be horrified with how developed the child actually is when it's aborted.

It doesn't really matter. The salient point is that it should uniformly be the woman/couple's choice. Not society, not the church and not the foetus.

Piliger

robman60 wrote: »

There lies the problem though. Down Syndrome is often not detected until the 20 week scan as far as I know. That's why the UK allows abortion until birth if the child is disabled. I suspect many of the people who "support" abortion on the basis of abnormality such as Downs would be horrified with how developed the child actually is when it's aborted.

I don't think these points are true at all. Firstly DS can be detected between 10-15 weeks. I have not seen a single person here who 'supports' abortion on the basis of abnormality such as Downs. What people 'support' is the free choice by a mother, and father, to make their own choice.
Your suggestion that what a foetus 'looks like' is in any way a factor in deciding a woman's choice is abhorrent to me. My niece's doll looks like a 6 month old baby. But I'd be happy to burn the doll in the incinerator in a few years if it were abandoned

RobertKK

I grew up as a child with a person who had Down syndrome.
She was part of the family, she was loving and very much her own person like anyone else, like the rest of us just needed to be treated with respect and shown love, which she received.
She was born towards the end of WW2 and died late 1990's

She was a great person, I just hate how some look down their noses at people who have things like Down syndrome, no one is perfect and no one should view themselves better than someone else based on a medical or congenital condition.

When we have individual genome tests and the genetic things that are wrong with us are discovered given no one is perfect, then will people make excuses for abortion, when all the child will need is love and attention like any child would?
Down syndrome is a poor excuse for an abortion, just speaking as someone who as a child grew up with a relation who had it.

mrsbyrne

Cantremember wrote: »

No. It's blatantly obvious where it was done.

So no answer then. Lord the trolls on this thread. Anyone would think there was some kind of agenda attached to this abandoned surrogate baby issue.

mrsbyrne

Piliger wrote: »

I don't think these points are true at all. Firstly DS can be detected between 10-15 weeks. I have not seen a single person here who 'supports' abortion on the basis of abnormality such as Downs. What people 'support' is the free choice by a mother, and father, to make their own choice.
Your suggestion that what a foetus 'looks like' is in any way a factor in deciding a woman's choice is abhorrent to me. My niece's doll looks like a 6 month old baby. But I'd be happy to burn the doll in the incinerator in a few years if it were abandoned

Are you blind ? A poster said that killing a DS baby in utero was the smart caring thing to do! How is that not supporting abortion on the basis of abnormality such as DS?!?!!!

mrsbyrne

genericguy wrote: »

Holy ****, you've wrecked any credibility you might have had there. It was very efficiently done though. Fair play to you.

Yet you can't elucidate how I wrecked my credibility. Have another go.

mrsbyrne

Hotfail.com wrote: »

If the parents think that the child will have more severe problems than gum disease, which is highly likely in the case of Down Syndrome kids, then I believe it's their prerogative to choose to abort the baby if they believe it will save themselves a lot of hardship, or if it will save the child from a difficult life of illness and pain. It's their choice and we shouldn't be critical of whatever decision they make.

I don't think they're stupid or uncaring for not getting an abortion, just as I wouldn't consider getting an abortion to be the smart, caring thing to do. It's their choice, it's an undesirable situation to be in, and I don't think we should be throwing labels around at people who choose whether to get an abortion or not.

Thank you for conceding and agreeing that parents who decide not to kill their unborn DS child are not stupid and uncaring.

robman60

Piliger wrote: »

I don't think these points are true at all. Firstly DS can be detected between 10-15 weeks. I have not seen a single person here who 'supports' abortion on the basis of abnormality such as Downs. What people 'support' is the free choice by a mother, and father, to make their own choice.
Your suggestion that what a foetus 'looks like' is in any way a factor in deciding a woman's choice is abhorrent to me. My niece's doll looks like a 6 month old baby. But I'd be happy to burn the doll in the incinerator in a few years if it were abandoned

I think you need to re-read my post. It can be detected at around 10 weeks as an enlarged bladder can often be a sign I think. However, this often goes undetected and hence it takes the 20 week scan to actually realise the child has Downs Syndrome.

I never used the words "looks like". I said the child is developed and I believe stage of development should definitely be considered in these scenarios. Stage of development is a crucial factor and this is reflected in many countries' legal frameworks.

@Hotfail: A couple of pages back you were saying you couldn't accept abortion except in cases where quality of life would be severely lessened. What's provoked the sudden change?

Hotfail.com

RobertKK wrote: »

I just hate how some look down their noses at people who have things like Down syndrome, no one is perfect and no one should view themselves better than someone else based on a medical or congenital condition.

I agree, it's sad that there are actually people who view the severely disabled as some sort of subspecies.

Piliger wrote: »

I have not seen a single person here who 'supports' abortion on the basis of abnormality such as Downs. What people 'support' is the free choice by a mother, and father, to make their own choice.

This this this. I think everyone would ideally like a world where there's no abortion needed, but unfortunately the world doesn't work like that. A lot of people seem to think that the pro-choice crowd actually like abortion, but in reality I'd imagine no one likes abortion, it's unpleasant and it's not nice to think that you're killing something that would someday lead a life of its own, but if the couple believe an abortion is the right choice for them then it's up to themselves to make that decision.

Piliger wrote: »

Your suggestion that what a foetus 'looks like' is in any way a factor in deciding a woman's choice is abhorrent to me. My niece's doll looks like a 6 month old baby. But I'd be happy to burn the doll in the incinerator in a few years if it were abandoned

I have to disagree with this tbh. A mother's always going to have some connection with the foetus growing inside of her, the younger it is the less childlike it seems, therefore it's p harder to think of it as nothing but a human the older it is. It makes sense that it's more difficult to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy when you may be thinking of the foetus as a child.

Holsten

I don't get the outrage?

They didn't want a DS baby so why would they take it?

Anyone who knowingly brings a DS child into the world is uncaring in my eyes.

Why would anyone actually do that is beyond me.

purplecow1977

I think there are various points at play here.
First is whether abortion (in any case) is right or wrong.
The second is whether abortion is okay in some circumstances.

Both of these have been discussed at length in various threads.

I suppose the point in the OP is whether the couple are wrong to have abandoned their baby or not after birth. Of course it is a terrible thing to do, but they did inform the surrogate of their wishes for a termination at 4 months when they realised the baby would have DS. Legally, who has the right to make such a decision? The surrogate who is carrying the babies, or the people that the sperm & egg belong to? Surrogacy is such a minefield.

The third is genetic testing and this part alarms me somewhat. So you get tested and you discover your baby is going to have DS. Some decide on a termination. What happens in case where a couple really really really want a boy, but scan shows they're having a girl, are they entitled to a termination? Is that morally 'right'?

robman I wasn't aware UK allowed abortion up to birth in case of a disability, is there an article to back this up?

B.A._Baracus

It's a weird weird thing indeed.
But ultimately to take the girl and leave the boy, your own flesh and blood.. to not care what happens to him. to not care if he dies... is just so horrible.

purplecow1977

Holsten wrote: »

I don't get the outrage?

They didn't want a DS baby so why would they take it?

Anyone who knowingly brings a DS child into the world is uncaring in my eyes.

Why would anyone actually do that is beyond me.

I think that's an unfair to comment, and anyone posting here that has relatives with DS is outraged because if everyone thought like you, then those people wouldn't be in their lives and bring such happiness.

Also, "They didn't want a DS baby so why would they take it?"

Are you serious?

If I arrive to find i'm having a boy instead of the girl I'd planned, I am not going to say 'No thanks, I didn't want a girl'.
or
No thanks, I didn't want a redhead

This is a LIFE we are talking about, not a menu in a restaurant!

mrsbyrne

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Nah. Different doctors cover that. Will see what my health insurance covers. Then it depends on family situation, life assurance, quality of life etc.

I wouldn't want to put my children in debt for the rest of their lives just so I can be in pain for another few years.

I wouldn't be too sure of that ,shruikan. You've asserted that a possibility of a combination of any of the conditions listed is good enough reason to kill an unborn baby, I don't see how you can argue that it shouldn't apply further on down the line in life. I mean, you would be expensive to treat, troublesome to your family and in some discomfort yourself, so with the rising demand for the "right to die" working in tandem with the pro abortion lobbys recent "success" I don't think you'd have much choice in the matter when the time comes.
I mean, your family/loved ones do have the right to choose whether you become s burden on them don't they? And you've said yourself that you don't want your kids in debt? So.....

purplecow1977

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Are you blind ? A poster said that killing a DS baby in utero was the smart caring thing to do! How is that not supporting abortion on the basis of abnormality such as DS?!?!!!

I think the argument is that if they abort the baby with DS, they could be saving it a lifetime of hardship and hassle. The list of defects and health conditions were listed earlier. Most parents just want the very best for their child and are fearful that their child will have a substandard life if they have DS.

It's obviously really hard for you to imagine such a decision, as if everyone had such a mindset, you wouldn't have your sister in your life. Anyone with a DS child wouldn't swap it for the world.

Titzon Toast

Holsten wrote: »

I don't get the outrage?

They didn't want a DS baby so why would they take it?

Anyone who knowingly brings a DS child into the world is uncaring in my eyes.

Why would anyone actually do that is beyond me.

Perhaps because it was their baby? They shouldn't have separated the twins if you ask me. Both of them are their children, not the girl who they paid to have them.

robman60

purplecow1977 wrote: »

robman I wasn't aware UK allowed abortion up to birth in case of a disability, is there an article to back this up?

It was legalised in 1990 I believe. Just do a quick Google search and you'll find it pretty easily. Many of the parliamentarians wished to overturn it after it became law as they felt they weren't properly informed as to what the bill would allow.

It's also the case in the USA as a result of Doe vs. Bolton, which was settled by the Supreme Court on the same day as Roe vs. Wade. More startlingly, in the USA economic factors are permissible bases for abortion until birth. There are definite gray areas arising from that case, see here anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

Piliger

Hotfail.com wrote: »

I agree, it's sad that there are actually people who view the severely disabled as some sort of subspecies.

It's hard to believe that some people are serial killers. Neither group is significant in the wider scheme of things.

I have to disagree with this tbh. A mother's always going to have some connection with the foetus growing inside of her, the younger it is the less childlike it seems, therefore it's p harder to think of it as nothing but a human the older it is. It makes sense that it's more difficult to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy when you may be thinking of the foetus as a child.

Having paid, myself, for three girls to have abortions over the years (no not mine or my family's) I suggest you are making two different point. Yes the more advanced the foetus the more connected and the more feeling of it becoming a human being. That is not just inevitable but it is also my own philosophy. But I never found that the similarity in appearance alone had anything to do with it. This is a concept promoted by anti abortionists mostly.

Piliger

robman60 wrote: »

It was legalised in 1990 I believe. Just do a quick Google search and you'll find it pretty easily. Many of the parliamentarians wished to overturn it after it became law as they felt they weren't properly informed as to what the bill would allow.

It's also the case in the USA as a result of Doe vs. Bolton, which was settled by the Supreme Court on the same day as Roe vs. Wade. More startlingly, in the USA economic factors are permissible bases for abortion until birth. There are definite grew areas arising from that case, see here anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolton

What people need to understand is that because something is legal doesn't make it right for everyone, or indeed state what the Government or population think is right for everyone. To the best of my knowledge it is only used in extremely rare circumstances and conditions, and I myself would struggle to justify such an action.

purplecow1977

Piliger wrote: »

Having paid, myself, for three girls to have abortions over the years (no not mine or my family's).

I hope you don't mind me asking, but how does someone end up paying for 3 abortions that aren't anything to do with them??!

Piliger

Titzon Toast wrote: »

Perhaps because it was their baby? They shouldn't have separated the twins if you ask me. Both of them are their children, not the girl who they paid to have them.

So some people say. But we are not familiar with the whole agreement or relationship between these people, nor the history of the case.

mrsbyrne

Holsten wrote: »

I don't get the outrage?

They didn't want a DS baby so why would they take it?

Anyone who knowingly brings a DS child into the world is uncaring in my eyes.

Why would anyone actually do that is beyond me.

I don't care if I get banned.
You are a total scumbag.
Including myself there are at least 3 posters on this thread with close relations who are living with DS.
How dare you say our parents are uncaring?
I hope you die soon and screaming in agony, you bigoted cowardly ****witted ****.

Piliger

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I hope you don't mind me asking, but how does someone end up paying for 3 abortions that aren't anything to do with them??!

Three unfortunate cases where they had no one else to help. Simple.

Piliger

mrsbyrne wrote: »

I don't care if I get banned.
You are a total scumbag.
Including myself there are at least 3 posters on this thread with close relations who are living with DS.
How dare you say our parents are uncaring?
I hope you die soon and screaming in agony, you bigoted cowardly ****witted ****.

As we suspected.

shruikan2553

mrsbyrne wrote: »

I wouldn't be too sure of that ,shruikan. You've asserted that a possibility of a combination of any of the conditions listed is good enough reason to kill an unborn baby, I don't see how you can argue that it shouldn't apply further on down the line in life. I mean, you would be expensive to treat, troublesome to your family and in some discomfort yourself, so with the rising demand for the "right to die" working in tandem with the pro abortion lobbys recent "success" I don't think you'd have much choice in the matter when the time comes.
I mean, your family/loved ones do have the right to choose whether you become s burden on them don't they? And you've said yourself that you don't want your kids in debt? So.....

Once you learn the difference between abortion and euthanasia we can talk.

Holsten

purplecow1977 wrote: »

I think that's an unfair to comment, and anyone posting here that has relatives with DS is outraged because if everyone thought like you, then those people wouldn't be in their lives and bring such happiness.

Also, "They didn't want a DS baby so why would they take it?"

Are you serious?

If I arrive to find i'm having a boy instead of the girl I'd planned, I am not going to say 'No thanks, I didn't want a girl'.
or
No thanks, I didn't want a redhead

This is a LIFE we are talking about, not a menu in a restaurant!

Huge difference between a healthy baby boy or girl and a baby with Down's syndrome.

Let's see how many parents would, having known and been given he option to abort would have. I would guess if they were to answer honestly it would be high.

Hotfail.com

Piliger wrote: »

It's hard to believe that some people are serial killers. Neither group is significant in the wider scheme of things.

Having paid, myself, for three girls to have abortions over the years (no not mine or my family's) I suggest you are making two different point. Yes the more advanced the foetus the more connected and the more feeling of it becoming a human being. That is not just inevitable but it is also my own philosophy. But I never found that the similarity in appearance alone had anything to do with it. This is a concept promoted by anti abortionists mostly.

I agree with your first point.

With regards to your second point.. That was just something I went over in my head, I think I would find it more difficult to abort a baby if I thought it was closer to being fully developed, but that's just my opinion and you're entitled to have yours. To be honest I don't knew how I'd ever react to being put in that situation and I hope I'll never have to.