Replies

“...older eggs have a greater risk of improper chromosome division. By age 35, a woman's risk of conceiving a child with Down syndrome is about 1 in 350. By age 40, the risk is about 1 in 100, and by age 45, the risk is about 1 in 30.”

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/down-syndrome/basics/risk-factors/con-20020948

It has been screamed from the rooftops for 30 years to past-prime parents that they have a much higher risk of bearing children with severe genetic anomalies. Doctors will strongly advise in emphatic terms for testing of both parents for tell-tale genetic markers - both before and after conception - as this woman's doctor did.

The mother in this article was too lazy to test, too irresponsible and too selfish to involve her own husband in testing, and then gets offended that the medical staff is incredulous of her stupidity. I'm sure she'll be even more offended when hubby walks out the door.

What is your point?

Do you think that some lives are more valuable than others?

Do you think foreknowledge of a potential problem exonerates a person for choosing to kill their own offspring?

At what point is a person not a person? When is it OK to cull the herd?

Too lazy and stupid to test? Most older women are perfectly aware that they do run a higher risk of having a child with Down Syndrome.

Some chose not to test, because they would not abort a child with DS. There are simple blood tests which do not pose a risk to the developing baby, but these are followed up with invasive tests, amniocentesis or CVS, that do risk miscarriage. There are false positives and false negatives. It can be a very informed decision not to test.

BTW, testing the father isn’t going to detect DS in the child. And some husbands and fathers would not abandon their wives for having a baby with DS.

You’re coming across contemptuous, ignorant, intolerant, and small-minded. Maybe you would abort any child with DS; maybe you could never find the grace to be happy with a child with DS, but you aren’t everyone.

And keep in mind that if you have a perfectly vetted, perfectly healthy baby, no one is immune to bad luck, illness, and accident, and you and yours may have to learn to cope with disability, far too late for abortion, and way too early for euthanasia.

Blueplum: "The mother in this article was too lazy to test, too irresponsible and too selfish to involve her own husband in testing..."

It's funny how the unconditional love of a mother is universally cherished as one of the noblest things in human existence. And then when a mother actually manifests unconditional love, she gets trashed as a moral reprobate for welcoming and loving an innocent child who is not a member of the elite: the Planned, Perfect and Privileged.

I declined to take several of the usual round of prenatal tests even though I was an "elderly primagravida" at 38, because, as I told my doc, I considera them a form of hostile surveillance. "Hostile" they are, because when defects are discovered, it almost invariably results in a fatal attack on the baby before birth. That's the intended result of an antihuman protocol.

I fired by first OB/GYN, who ried to push me into an amniocentesis. You should truly give a second thought to your thesis that hostile prenatal surveillance is morally mandated. --- What a thoroughly perverted value system.

According to your own "worst-case scenario" statistics --- mothers at age 45--- such women are still 96% certain of giving birth to children who do not have Down Syndrome.

If I had the choice of living with either a Down Syndrome child or a Down Syndrome baby-slayer, I'd choose the child. They are much more pleasant and more gracious company than their would-be exterminators.

The mother in this article was too lazy to test, too irresponsible and too selfish to involve her own husband in testing, and then gets offended that the medical staff is incredulous of her stupidity.

"Past prime time" mothers are also at a much higher risk of miscarriage. That is why, not being stupid, they don't have the tests because it raises your risk even higher.

Yes, I do know about this and to answer the question, no, I did not.

I would not put my babies in more danger then they already were. All my babies were wanted and loved no matter what.

You see, that is what is wrong with your viewpoint. You have the idea that innocent humans are disposable. Like a jar that should be thrown away if it cracks.

You don't understand that the innocent should be cherished just because.

What amazes me is that anyone thinks it’s any of their business. She made choices different than yours or the doctors so you have the right to call her names and the doctor can be rude because she didn’t obey him? Who the hell ARE you people? Unless it involves the murder of a child it’s called MYOB.

Yeah, well scream this from the rooftops as well.

Down's risk to children of older men

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-102697/Downs-risk-children-older-men.html

Oh, and IBTZ.....