New Study Fuels Controversy Over Down Syndrome Abortions

CNSNews.com ^ | April 05, 2005 | Marc Morano

[Grampa Dave]

One of the problems in Islamo land is the lack of eligible women for the male population. So many of them become one way terrorists to get their 72 Virgins after they blow themselves up.

[mblaise]

"One of the problems in Islamo land is the lack of eligible women for the male population. So many of them become one way terrorists to get their 72 Virgins after they blow themselves up."


that's why the more secular islamic societies (egypt, iraq, jordan - even iran!) have discouraged polygamy. "excess" in males is always a problem!

[agrace]

Among the examples noted in the report was an expectant mother who spoke of a medical professional who "showed a really pitiful video, first of people with Down syndrome who were very low tone and lethargic-looking, and then proceeded to tell us [in 1999] that our child would never be able to read, write or count change."

The study also found that expectant mothers were often not counseled by medical personnel regarding the latest information on Down syndrome or given any contact information about parent support groups during the emotional period when many women decide whether to seek an abortion.

Despicable, but not surprising.

While the live birth rate of babies afflicted with Down syndrome has remained steady in recent years, studies have shown the abortion rate of Down syndrome babies is estimated at 80 to 90 percent when prenatal screening reveals the possibility or probability for the condition.

The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the prenatal Down syndrome testing is wrong 20 to 40 percent of the time, raising the question of whether healthy unborn children are being aborted.

I'd say there's no question at all - healthy children ARE being aborted. I find it appalling that people will abort over the possibility when the test itself is wrong at such a high percentage.

When I was pregnant with our third and last child, our Downs screen came back positive. My doctor asked if I wanted an amnio and I told him no, because I'm not having an abortion. And my daughter was born perfectly healthy.

At the time I asked my doctor why do they do the test at all if it is wrong so often and he said, because it's the only one we have.

So in other words, using a highly faulty screening process, we prenatally test for a condition that can't be helped in utero; ie, the only reason for the test is to give parents the option of abortion. Great.

[Aquinasfan]

the abortion rate of Down syndrome babies is estimated at 80 to 90 percent when prenatal screening reveals the possibility or probability for the condition.

God help us. The situation is compounded by the fact that some of the prenatal Down syndrome testing is wrong 20 to 40 percent of the time, raising the question of whether healthy unborn children are being aborted.

So only the "healthy" are entitled to life? The comparisons with Nazi Germany are justified.

[Aquinasfan]

If you're not perfect, to the left, you're better off dead.

Logically then, those living with these conditions should be put to death, for their own good. The logic is in place. All we need now is someone willing to do the dirty work.

[Aquinasfan]

She was pressured into an amnio, where the only purpose was admitted by the medical profession to be the justification for an abortion.

And amnio causes miscarriage 1 time in 300.

[timtoews5292004]

somebody already did something similar just recently. A judge down in florida, if I recall correctly.

[timtoews5292004]

Don't forget Margaret Sanger and her stance on eugenics.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I think it is wrong that the alpha-fetoprotein test is now considered a routine prenatal screening. If I were pregnant I would refuse the AFP.

AFP has a huge rate of both false positives and false negatives; it leads to thousands of unnecessary amniocenteses, which themselves can injure or kill the developing baby. But worst of all, it subtly leads literally tens of thousands of women to have an attitude of "tentative pregnancy": that is, if all the testing is OK, then I'm "really pregnant" and I'll go ahead and tell my family; but if my testing shows anything a little off the norm, I'll snuff the baby and nobody will ever know.

This is a society that talks about "tolerance," "diversity," "live and let live," "inclusion." And at the same time, we practically insist that pregnant women practice "hostile surveillance" of their unborn children, with the ever-present option of rejecting and killing the child if the "product" isn't perfect.

There is a big difference between a product and a person.

A product is all about specifications and performance.

A person is all about learning to accept and be accepted, trust and be trusted, love and be loved.

Let's love our babies. That's what we're here for.

[GraceCoolidge]

It is pretty startling to me that so many women view as "routine" what I consider pretty extensive prenatal testing. It also surprises me how many pregnant women do not seem to realize that the decision for such testing is theirs to make. I have known professional women who exemplify aggression and decisiveness in the workforce meekly accept any test as "what you do." During my first pregnancy, I just told my ob/gyn straight out that I didn't want any test for genetic defects, unless the issue also could be treated in utero. My husband and I explained that there was no way we would not have our baby, and no test was necessary to "know" anything unless there was a prenatal treatment option. My doctor responded, "Good for you" and that was the end of it. I also told him, however, that we would be glad to sign any release he wanted to confirm that we were refusing the tests. But it does seem to me that a lot of doctors present these extensive testing as the norm and make it seem routine, and as I say, I'm surprised by the women I know who never think to question it.