h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I agree wholeheartedly, McKay.

The doctor who invented amniocentesis was a New Zealander, and pro-life. He died very bitter that a procedure he had developed so that parents could be prepared for a disabled child, was used to facilitate abortion of children with disabilities.

If anyone is interested in reading an incredibly excellent book about this topic, I'd strongly suggest "Choosing Naia" -- not only does it follow the decision making process of a family after they receive a prenatal Downs diagnosis and the aftermath that follows, it also has a tremendous wealth of factually accurate information about Downs, prenatal testing, and the abortions that often result.

There is a lot of misinformation in this thread, with personal opinions and experiences inappropriately presented as facts -- enough so that I won't have the patience to stay subscribed to this thread. I did want to post the book recommendation, though, as it is an incredibly worthwhile read. If people have questions about the book, or about where to go for accurate information about Downs and/or prenatal testing, feel free to drop me a note on my personal space.


Mikey

That sounds like a great book, Mikey!

Mikey, if you think there is a lot of "misinformation" about a topic you are clearly passionate about then why don't you see this as an opportunity to educate us with the facts you know of? Not doing so hardly leads one to put faith in your claims.

Oh well.

Ste

<> (Mikey)

You mean like this one?

<> (Della)

I agree with Ste that it would be more beneficial to people on this thread to have this misinformation challenged and explained by those who have information (not simply opinions) to share.

az

Then there's this bit:

<>

Amnios are routinely discussed with pregnant mothers in the US. They are not mandatory, but the doctors do tend to recommend them. My twenty-something wife and I elected to do it. And based on our own experiences with Down's children, we both elected to terminate if our baby tested positive. The fact that aborting that child would have meant for us that we could never have a child of our own demonstrates the strength of our convictions in this area.

I can't speak for my wife's experience, but the Down's boy I know is now a grown man. He lives in some sort of group home and has some kind of menial job, and that's as close to a normal life as he can ever be expected to have. I've always been extremely wary whenever I'm around him, because he's very big, very aggressive, and possibly could hurt someone very badly without realizing the consequences of his actions.

But even if we'd had one of the sweet ones, Down's children are a huge drain on the family. Raising a normal child is hard, but you get to step back gradually because they're learning how to take care of themselves. Raising a Down's child is like raising a child that never gets older. It just gets bigger.

I remain pro-choice. We can't turn the clock back, we have these diagnostic tests & unless we elect to stop using them, people should be able make an informed choice. That means being given the choice whether or not to test, being given impartial information about the implications of adverse results etc.

However, I would prefer to see the legal date for elective terminations reduced to maybe 20 weeks.

<<You mean like this one?

<> (Della)>>

azahar, what makes you think that's misinformation? It's observation, that's all. Do try to be fair!

Its misinformation because its what YOU think not what is necessarily the truth.

"98% of statistics are made up on the spot"

You are giving us these falsified statistics in the hope that we will change our opinions based on them. Think again.

one love

Sorry, Blinky love, you're making even less sense than usual...

What do you think I'm trying to get you to change your minds about? I simply offered what I have observed.

Della,
Even if actually based on personal experience and working out real figures - "I know ~20 people with Down's Syndrome, and only XXXX and YYYY don't seem like happy individuals", people reading nice round figures like 90% and 10% may look at them with skepticism purely becuase of the numbers.

Unless there was actual data to back figures up, if someone was trying to argue a point and said "90% of XXXX think YYYY", it'd make me immediately doubt what they were saying, whether I agreed with them or not. 90/10 seems possibly to be the split most likely plucked out of the air by anyone trying to make a point that something is *almost* universal, but not *quite*.
In fact, if something in reality *was* a 90/10 split, if I worked in PR, I'd probably try and find some other way of expressing it to make it seem less like a guessed/approximated/invented figure.

It's a bit like when someone's asked to assess the cost of damage after some incident, and comes back with a figure like £1m or £100m - My first thought is how round a figure it looks, followed by a wondering of just how much a guess it is - does £100m really mean 'anything between ~£30m and £300m'

Della

You seem to be trying to change the perception that some people have that not all Downs children/adults are as nice as you suggested. You then quote percentages. So, of all those with Downs syndrome that you know well enough to judge, you have assessed 9 out of 10 of them as being nice & non-aggressive? So how many in total have you known? Is it a sufficiently large number to convince people that this is a reliable statistic?

Is that in any way comparable with niceness/aggressiveness of a 'normal' poulation?

Do you see the problem in using numbers like that?

There was nothing non-sensical about Blicky's post Della. Actually it was a very sensible criticism of your use of statistics.

I think all Della's saying is that in her experience about 9 out 10 Down's people she has met are not aggressive but are friendly. That's just her view of things. I'm not saying that's an accurate "statistic", but you can't tell her she's wrong.

Besides, I think 10% of Down's people being aggressive is a rather scary prospect. Those guys are *strong*, and that's a lot of people.

It's all anecdotal evidence anyway, so let's just discuss the issue and not the people involved in the discussion.



Ste

"[W]e both elected to terminate if our baby tested positive"

Suppose there was some sort of malfunction with the diagnostic machine and your Downs-positive baby tested negative. A week after it was born, a doctor called you up and told you the baby did have Downs. Would you kill it then? This is not a rhetorical question.

<> (Ste)

Well, except for the fact that she *always* does this . . .


az

<>

No.

And I honestly don't know what I would have done if I'd found out I was carrying a Down's syndrome foetus when I was pregnant. In any case, I never got to find out.

I never personally judge people over their reasons for choosing to terminate a pregnancy. Because I am not living their lives.

I've also known people with Down's syndrome children and I don't think that anyone - not even Della - looking from the outside in can really know what it's like as there are far too many peronsal variables to make such sweeping generalisations.


az

Okay, posting this article isn't meant to focus on the killing but rather on the last paragraphs.

"Mr Wragg also described the "horrific" moment he and his wife were told their unborn son was also a Hunter carrier.
The couple then decided to terminate the seven-and-a-half-month foetus, the court heard"

After having had the experience of one child born with this illness they chose a very late-term abortion when they found out the second child was also a carrier. Opinions?


az

"A week after it was born, a doctor called you up and told you the baby did have Downs. Would you kill it then?"

Seems like a loaded question? Who do you expect to answer yes? So the real question is, how far back does the protection go? 3 minutes before birth occurs?

In the first 30-40 days, a human, pig, and horse foetus are indistinguishable. Do you eat meat? B/c if you do, then clearly you should agree that the *indistinguishable* human feotus can be aborted.

Maybe you don't buy that. You want protection all the way back to the moment that the sperm has contacted the egg. In this case, would you be willing to scratch or punch someone who was attempting to kill you? Because when you do that you destroy many more cells than the 1-2 cells that are the initial foetus.

Have you/Would you take antibiotics? How about anti-cancer drugs? These all kill cells...
There's a chance that they could miraculously turn into a living breathing creature...

These aren't rhetorical questions.

"In the first 30-40 days, a human, pig, and horse foetus are indistinguishable. Do you eat meat? B/c if you do, then clearly you should agree that the *indistinguishable* human feotus can be aborted."

Well, I do eat meat. A human foetus might be indistinguishable from any other animal in gross morphological terms, but it has different DNA, therefore it's a different organism.

"Maybe you don't buy that. You want protection all the way back to the moment that the sperm has contacted the egg. In this case, would you be willing to scratch or punch someone who was attempting to kill you? Because when you do that you destroy many more cells than the 1-2 cells that are the initial foetus."

I would like to see protection go back that far. And if someone attacked me, I most certainly would scratch and punch them; however, I would not try to kill them. I might kill maybe (10^-10)% of their cells, but an abortion kills 100% of the baby's cells. It's a question of degrees.

"Have you/Would you take antibiotics? How about anti-cancer drugs? These all kill cells...
There's a chance that they could miraculously turn into a living breathing creature..."

Sorry but no. A cancer cannot change into a living breathing creature, whereas an embryo can. Even a teratoma cannot - I asked in SEx.

As for bacteria, well they are bacteria, hence they cannot become animals that live and breath...but I know what you mean. Normally I let my immune system take care of them, but if push comes to shove and my life is in danger, I will take antibiotics to kill the bacteria.

Similarly, I have no problem with an abortion of it's to save the mother's life, or if it can be proven beyond any possible shadow of a doubt that the baby's life will be one of constant pain. However, aborting babies/foetuses/embryos because they have some sort of disability is literally eugenics.