“Quite frankly, nothing you have posted on this topic leads me to believe anything you posit as ‘fact’ is true. I notice you site no actual specifics to back up your position...just random numbers pulled from the ethers.”
Well, I started out quoting the very same risk - 0.5% - as you did. Are you now unhappy with that number? If not, I don't consider that “very high risk.” I consider that “low risk.”
And I've spelled out on the thread a sufficient amount of information as to our actual reasons for going ahead with this test. I'm afraid that you just don't see having knowledge as being worthwhile. It appears that prudence and planning aren't concepts that mean much to you.
For my wife and I, they do.
As to what our own doctors were able to achieve - well, I'd go try to see if there were an Internet-available statistic for it, but, I don't really care what you think or believe. We know what our own doctors were doing in the mid-1990s.
As to the risk given as 0.06%, it wouldn't take much googling to learn about the study that shows that, and WHY the risk has been lowered due to improvements in technology. I'm not much interested in helping you out. I can find very easily any number of sources that show research to sustain quoted risks of well under 0.5%. As to the difference between what folks did in the 1970s, when risk was assessed as 0.5% compared to what folks do now, well, again, a quick google will reveal much.
Clearly, my posts aren't meant for you any longer, but at this point, for folks with open minds and hearts who are actually pro-life and who desire to influence people who find themselves pregnant with a child with Down Syndrome.
“Yes, it is my considered opinion that you are both idiots.”
Well, thank you! I consider you to be an enabler of abortion of disabled people, in that you are part of the attitude I find among other pro-lifers to oppose testing almost as a matter of a religious doctrine.
Some folks need to know the answers to the questions, if the answers can be reasonably found. If you tell them that they deserve scorn as idiots, well, I'm afraid that they may not have much time for you to hear out why they shouldn't abort their Down Syndrome baby. If you had an open heart and half a brain, you would realize that, even though in YOUR feeble mind you can't accept the risk, other folks are gonna test whether you think it's a good idea or not, and that if you understand that need, or at least tolerate it without calling folks idiots who deserve scorn, they might be open to the follow-on question, which is, why not consider keeping the child?
“BTW, did your wife abort your baby after obtaining the test results?”
Do you read, or does someone read off selected pieces and parts of posts to you, and thus, you were unable to read for yourself the small number of posts I've made on this thread?
And, of course, all of this wrangling about amniocentesis misses the point, which is that this blood test, rather than necessarily being something that can only encourage abortion, is something that could actually be utilized for a pro-life purpose, in that there isn't any fetal risk associated with the test, and we can shut up "pro-life" shrews like you and encourage, in a pro-life way the use of this test to help parents who may possibly have a child with Down Syndrome to prepare for their child.
Dear wagglebee,
This is precisely what I'm talking about - the assumption by pro-lifers that the only reasonable stance is against testing, that to test is to be pro-abort, that to test is merely the prelude to aborting. Well, yeah, sure, that's how the enemy would like to define the situation.
After all, most NORMAL folks will desire very much to know sooner rather than later, and much sooner than the anticipated delivery date, whether or not their unborn child has Down Syndrome. And thus, most NORMAL folks who get an initial indication that the child may, indeed, have Down Syndrome, will test.
And then, the pro-lifers having ceded the field of battle to the pro-aborts through their rigid scorn for the "idiots" who choose to test, will have forgone any chance to have any influence those who have tested - which is most everyone. So, the only folks any longer having influence over parents in this set of circumstances will be the folks pushing abortion. The only folks that will be heard are the folks who paint the darkest, most gruesome picture of what it is to have a child with Down Syndrome, who will emphasize the possibility of the worst case, both in terms of maturation and development, and in terms of associated physical health problems. Yeah, that's the way to do it.
Nice. Brilliant. Not.
But I don't know why we have to let the enemy do all the defining. I don't know why we can't show that the choice isn't between living in ignorance for months of one's pregnancy or committing to abort a Down Syndrome baby if one decides to test. That's a false choice that pro-lifers have permitted the pro-aborts to define as the only choice.
Every person is responsible for his own actions. But pro-lifers who react in this way to fetal testing for Down Syndrome help enable and promote abortion of children with the syndrome by not showing a way to reconcile the felt need for testing with the goal of protecting unborn children.
sitetest
The amniocentesis tests amniotic fluid in the womb, it is NOT a blood test.
I refused it in the mid 1990s, due to the openly published very high risk rate,(causes an abortion at the rate of one in every 200 patients) acknowledged as factual, by my Obstetrician, one who specialized solely in high risk pregnancies.
Converting the “risk rate” to a “percentile” distorts the dangerous nature of this test. The adverse reaction in one of every 200 infants tested, is death.
Not an acceptable lethality rate for an entirely elective and medically unnecessary test.
So you can either stop openly displaying your ignorance, or continue to spout lies and distortions for whatever reason you self justify.