Posted on 01/01/2007 5:45:43 AM PST by shrinkermd
There's a big change coming for pregnant women: Down syndrome testing no longer hinges on whether they're older or younger than 35. This week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists begins recommending that every pregnant woman, regardless of age, be offered a choice of tests for this common birth defect.
The main reason: Tests far less invasive than the long-used amniocentesis are now widely available, some that can tell in the first trimester the risk of a fetus having Down syndrome or other chromosomal defects.
It's a change that promises to decrease unnecessary amnios - giving mothers-to-be peace of mind without the ordeal - while also detecting Down syndrome in moms who otherwise would have gone unchecked.
The new guideline is published in the January issue of the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
About one in 800 babies has Down syndrome, a condition where having an extra chromosome causes mental retardation, a characteristic broad, flat face and small head and, often, serious heart defects.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Paving the way for more abortions.
I have to agree with the idea of parents being able to test a fetus for any number of serious genetic and prenatal defects, and to abort in such a case.
What motivation other than cruelty would insist that a child be born who is crippled, retarded, in need of terribly expensive medical care before painfully dying at a young age?
No matter what rationalization is used, that is the bottom line. Pain and suffering to the child and their parents. Pain and suffering, vs. whatever you find offensive in abortion. Pain and suffering. A lifetime's worth because of someone else's principals.
Life is not worth living if its sole purpose is anguish, pain and suffering, not only to the child, but to their parents. It is just wrong.
What are they supposed to do if it is detected?
I mean ... my daughter is in her 30's and wants children. She is adamantly anti-abortion. Why put this burden on moms?
i was 24, 30 and 36 with our kids. without hesitation,
we declined all but the very basic testing. it made
absolutely no difference to us if any of our kids were
born with disabilities. if blessed we are ever with a
fourth, we'd do it again in a heartbeat, and i've been
"high risk" with all three. :)
It was quickly followed by another phrase, "Arbeit Macht Frei."
When I was pregnant with my second child I was over 40 and the doctors suggested we test for Down's. They reminded me that 1 in 50 children whose mothers are over 40 have Down's Syndrome. I protested, "But I know lots of mothers who are in my cohort when they gave birth and none of them have Down's babies." The doctors said sadly that that was because most of the Down's babies get aborted.
I now know one family who had a Down's baby, and being good Catholics they had prepared in advance to keep the child. He is a joy now.
I hope that what you believe is true pilot, but in reality I believe this testing will lead to more abortions of "imperfect" children.
When I refused amnio while pregnant with my first child at 36, my doctor was not supportive of that decision. All other tests (ultrasounds, blood work) showed everything looked fine so I saw no reason to endanger my baby by having a two-foot needle stuck into my belly.
The doctor told me that I should reconsider the amnio because, at my "advanced maternal age", my chances of having a Downs baby were so much greater. He basically told me I was "running out of time" to have the amnio and "make my decision"...meaning I was running out of time to get tested and to get an abortion if testing showed a child with Downs or some other problem. I resented that, although my doctor had undoubtedly seen many women and couples choose to not to carry imperfect babies to full term. I respectfully turned down the amnio.
The baby I carried was mine and I would love her, any possible imperfections included.
I think the amount of information expectant parents are bombarded with borders on the absurd. My genetic counseling session consisted of a full hour of possible chromosomal horrors. By the time I walked out, I felt as if I had a 1-in-10,000 chance of having a healthy child. It was awful and stressful and, IMO, needless. I could have saved myself many sleepless nights if I had skipped it altogether.
My son was born almost 19 years ago. I was over 35 and had to sign a waiver because I refused a blood test to detect Down's (I wasn't going to abort, so why take the test.) When asked why they said they were trying to avoid lawsuits for "wrongful life." Unbelievable!
I remember when algore said that everone on the Right was part of "the extra-chromosome crowd"... what a pud
Margaret Sanger and Josef Mengele would have agreed with you.
But who set them, and you, up as arbiters of whose life is worth living?
But .. they never bother to tell you how many times they are wrong in their prognosis.
I have a niece and a nephew who were both "diagnosed" with dreadful maladies in the womb - WHICH NEITHER OF THEM HAVE. Because their parents decided to go ahead with the pregnancies and brought the babies to full term did we find out the tests were totally wrong.
This whole plan to me seems only to try to abort more babies.
These people agree with you:
"60,000 Reichsmarks is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too. Read '[A] New People', the monthly magazines of the Bureau for Race Politics of the NSDAP."
I was unwilling to murder the child in my womb if it wasn't perfect and told him that!
You could say the same thing for children born into poverty or into dangerous neighborhoods.
By the way, the child is already there when the test takes place. Your question really only has merit in discussions prior to conceiving the child.
...or a "burden to society". Once we have socialized health care then there will be a "state interest." It sends chills down my spine.
There are so many things that I disagree with about your statement, I hardly know where to start.
I think about the story of Job in the Bible - there are never any guarantees that our lives will be perfect & I believe our purpose here on earth is to learn to bear adversity with courage & the will to carry on, regardless - and that to do so - is man's highest ambition while in our mortal bodies. That which does not kill you DOES make you stronger, the character that develops when a person faces adversity is something we will rarely see in a society where all "imperfection & suffering" will be erased.
Also, when my sister was pregnant and living in Massachutesetts - they told her that her baby had Spina Bifida & urged her to get counseling and an abortion! She called us, horribly upset - said she didn't believe in abortion - and decided to go ahead & have her baby. My niece is now 17 years old, beautiful & perfectly healthy - no spina bifida whatsoever.
One last thing, my husband's cousin has Down's Syndrome - he is about 60 years old now - and a sweeter, happier person I have never met. He is friendly & enjoys his life to the fullest - sometimes I think he is lucky - he doesn't bear the stress and anxiety those of us who are "normal" do. He is a blessing and an honor to know.
Just because someone suffers pain, anquish, mental or physical disabilities does not make them any less human or deserving to live their lives. Who are we to make that judgement?
See #33, Dan.
BTW, I am pretty good at German (Valedictorian of my class at DLI), but the dang old alphabet boggles my mind. LOL.
I also see Popacapetl's point of view. In nature, severely disabled animals, as well as humans, usually die because they are unable to survive in the real world. Nature is a harsh mistress because the rule is survival of the fittest. Modern science now prevents the "pruning" of the family tree that was done by Nature.
A movie was recently released that shows the logical effect of mental retardation being passed on from one generation to the next generation called "Idiocracy" which I want to see when it comes out on January 9th. Essentially, it predicts that in a 200 or so years, the U.S. population will be largely morons - which I guess means that the Democrats will be in control of the country then. The Jerry Springer types (or even stupider if that is possible) will have taken over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.