She's missing the point (along with the article's author, who isn't interested in facts that don't advance his agenda). The average age of child-bearing has increased dramatically, and with it the percentage of pregnancies affected with Down Syndrome. So even with 80-90% of Down Syndrome pregnancies being aborted, the percentage of the population which has Down Syndrome hasn't dropped. As the article points out, there are currently 250,000 people with Down Syndrome in the U.S. They can have good lives, and make their families happy, when there's enough personal and medical support available for them. But there simply isn't enough support for 10 times as many Down Syndrome people -- especially when the birth of a Down Syndrome child nearly always ends up being instead of, and not in addition to, a normal child who can grow up to provide support.
What are you suggesting? That they would be useless eaters and should be killed in the womb? About medical and personal support; Is there some sort of shortage of ordinary medical care in effect for certain people that requires rationing? Personal support? I see people with Down Syndrome working at jobs all the time. I see them providing all sorts of other types of support to their families, but they can't have happy lives and be blessing to their families if they are killed first.
Cordially
"The average age of child-bearing has increased dramatically, and with it the percentage of pregnancies affected with Down Syndrome. So even with 80-90% of Down Syndrome pregnancies being aborted, the percentage of the population which has Down Syndrome hasn't dropped."
Couldn't agree more. I thought the exact smae thing when I read the article. The number of young women now having babies without screening would not explain the flat rate, given that young women have less occurences of Down Syndrome. It seems falacious. It looks like Sue Joe is spinning it into a case for increased screening of young women's pregnancies.