Should all Downs Syndrome babies be aborted?

[cassity]

 

Honest question. Like I say, my OH cares for DS people, I'm just wondering if advances in science could mean never having DS children in the future. And whether that would be a "right" or "good" thing, or a "horrible" thing.

 

 

I can't see DS as a good thing if science is able to 'cure'. Who would actually chose a DS child. In fact who would chose any disability if they didn't have to.

[I1L2T3]

I can't see DS as a good thing if science is able to 'cure'. Who would actually chose a DS child. In fact who would chose any disability if they didn't have to.

 

People do though. Watched a documentary about a deaf couple who desperately wanted a deaf child. Not everybody who is pregnant with a DS child would choose to terminate. Some people have incredibly positive views about bringing up children with disabilities and as a family we know a couple of other families with disabled children, one with DS. Maybe hard to understand but it does happen that parents do not regard this as a burden.

 

What about when somebody is carrying twins. It might be that one baby could have DS, the other not:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-469650/The-twins-million.html

[taxman]

I can't see DS as a good thing if science is able to 'cure'. Who would actually chose a DS child. In fact who would chose any disability if they didn't have to.

 

But DS children can have happy lives, they can live into their 50's. Who is to deny that life from them?

 

 

(Sorry if that sounds a bit antagonistic...I'm not being, I'm just asking a genuine question)

 

We looked after a child with severe difficulties and he will never get better. When he is 50 someone will have to wipe his bum. DS people can function at a much higher level than him but they still seem to be routinely aborted.

 

I just think that if medical research means we no longer have to have DS children, it just seems a bit sad. Because they are lovely people and it does smack of eugenics

[cassity]

But DS children can have happy lives, they can live into their 50's. Who is to deny that life from them?

 

 

(Sorry if that sounds a bit antagonistic...I'm not being, I'm just asking a genuine question)

 

We looked after a child with severe difficulties and he will never get better. When he is 50 someone will have to wipe his bum. DS people can function at a much higher level than him but they still seem to be routinely aborted.

 

I just think that if medical research means we no longer have to have DS children, it just seems a bit sad. Because they are lovely people and it does smack of eugenics

 

I don't see it as antagonistic at all taxman..people make choices and quite rightly so. What I'm implying is, if science was able to rid DS at a genetic level within the parent why would anyone chose to have a child with DS..is it for the child or for the parent? Is it regarded as a natural state? I've no doubt DS children grow to have happy fulfilled lives but aborting DS is a giant leap from avoiding DS. Do people actually conceive with the hope that their child is DS?

 

Aborting to eradicate isn't the same as eradicating through science with a result that the child is 'normal', and alive.

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2015 at 00:47 ----------

 

People do though. Watched a documentary about a deaf couple who desperately wanted a deaf child. Not everybody who is pregnant with a DS child would choose to terminate. Some people have incredibly positive views about bringing up children with disabilities and as a family we know a couple of other families with disabled children, one with DS. Maybe hard to understand but it does happen that parents do not regard this as a burden.

 

What about when somebody is carrying twins. It might be that one baby could have DS, the other not:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-469650/The-twins-million.html

 

Desperately wanting a child that's deaf, or blind, or no limbs to me smacks of eugenics. The result being that if your child isn't born to your expectations the child is then somehow deficient in some way...which is ironic. I guess what we have to define is what is 'normal' and what isn't.

[Obelix]

It interests me how people react to genetics and genetic diseases. On the one hand the eradication of life limiting genetic diseases which can cause suffering like Huntington's is automatically viewed as a good thing. On the other somatic gene therapy and embryo screening are hugely controversial.

 

I wonder how people would react if you ask them about eating a food which was genetically engineered to contain extra chromosomes and then what their views are on seedless grapes.

 

On the whole, we as a society don't react rationally when facing such questions.

 

There is an exceedingly interesting discussion about this on the BBC's History of the world in 100 objects - it's about how the earliest gods appear just after agriculture and how they are always personifications of food or harvests. They postulate that we are loathe to accept GMO food becaue it is in effect mucking about with what we hold to be most sacred which is our daily bread.

 

ITs the Maya Maize God statue one if you want to listen to it.

[loraward]

I have. That's why I'm asking the question, rather than giving an answer. I agree it smacks of the Third Reich and I'd never countenance a blanket abortion of Downs Syndrome babies, but isn't that the inevitable consequence of better testing?

 

If testing is easier and less risky, and DS can be found earlier in pregnancy, then won't more people abort?

 

Or, seeing as DS tends to involve older women, would they rather have a DS child than none at all?

 

Honest question. Like I say, my OH cares for DS people, I'm just wondering if advances in science could mean never having DS children in the future. And whether that would be a "right" or "good" thing, or a "horrible" thing.

 

If if advances in science can make it safer, easier and more reliable to determine whether a baby will be born disabled, then surely it is a good thing because it gives people the information they need to make an informed choice on whether to take the pregnancy to full term.

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2015 at 07:57 ----------

 

But DS children can have happy lives, they can live into their 50's. Who is to deny that life from them?

 

 

(Sorry if that sounds a bit antagonistic...I'm not being, I'm just asking a genuine question)

 

We looked after a child with severe difficulties and he will never get better. When he is 50 someone will have to wipe his bum. DS people can function at a much higher level than him but they still seem to be routinely aborted.

 

I just think that if medical research means we no longer have to have DS children, it just seems a bit sad. Because they are lovely people and it does smack of eugenics

 

Whilst the numbers are low society can provide for them, but what would happen if 50% of all babies born had DS. As a much larger group they would become a significant burden on society and very likley lead a less happy life.

So at what point would society deem it desirable to lower the number or prevent the birth of humans that could never support themselves?

[LeMaquis]

If testing is easier and less risky, and DS can be found earlier in pregnancy, then won't more people abort?

 

You talk about people with DS as being a burden on their families, a burden on the state, a burden on society. You can say the same about elderly people, other disabled people, criminals, children, unemployed people, etc.

 

And yet you just mention people with DS. The words slippery slope have just appeared before my eyes. There's something about DS which you find more relevant than other people.

 

People with DS are humans and have as much right to life as anyone else. Ultimately it's the parents' responsibility to decide whether to abort or not. Their considerations will go a lot wider than whether their child will be a burden.

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2015 at 08:15 ----------

 

Whilst the numbers are low society can provide for them, but what would happen if 50% of all babies born had DS.

 

Stupid hypothesis. It's not going to happen. If it did society would change rapidly as it would no longer be able to sustain itself as it is.

 

What would happen if 50% of people were blind, mass murderers, drug addicts, etc. We could hypothesis all day.

[Detetcive]

I can't see DS as a good thing if science is able to 'cure'. Who would actually chose a DS child. In fact who would chose any disability if they didn't have to.

 

Why not go one step further and drown babies with Cerebral Palsy or euthanize any children badly injured in accidents?

[loraward]

You talk about people with DS as being a burden on their families, a burden on the state, a burden on society. You can say the same about elderly people, other disabled people, criminals, children, unemployed people, etc.

 

And yet you just mention people with DS. The words slippery slope have just appeared before my eyes. There's something about DS which you find more relevant than other people.

 

People with DS are humans and have as much right to life as anyone else. Ultimately it's the parents' responsibility to decide whether to abort or not. Their considerations will go a lot wider than whether their child will be a burden.

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2015 at 08:15 ----------

 

 

Stupid hypothesis. It's not going to happen. If it did society would change rapidly as it would no longer be able to sustain itself as it is.

 

What would happen if 50% of people were blind, mass murderers, drug addicts, etc. We could hypothesis all day.

 

But not as stupid as comparing them to elderly people that have spent most of their life contributing to society.

 

There are 9.4 million disabled people in England, accounting for 18 per cent of the population, (obviously some are self sufficient and some need round the clock care) the point I was trying to make is at what point does that figure become unsustainable?

 

 

 

 

 

---------- Post added 07-06-2015 at 08:34 ----------

 

Why not go one step further and drown babies with Cerebral Palsy or euthanize any children badly injured in accidents?

 

Because that is entirely different to terminating a pregnancy.

Edited June 7, 2015 by loraward

[SnailyBoy]

Unless the original questions in relating to mandatory terminations, which i very much doubt.

 

This test gives women the details they need to make an informed decision on continuing a pregnancy or not.

 

Individual women should have the final say on what happens to their bodies.