Why is Down Syndrome aborted?

Post Reply New Topic

Why is it that in today's "civilized" world where we have access to abortion, where we didn't have it 50 years ago, people with Down Syndrome aren't allowed to live life.

Why are people not evil for wanting the right to abort any fetus?

Are you serious? It's a huge burden taking care of someone with Downs Syndrome.

Why do women abort babies with Down Syndrome?

Because they can.

This is not strictly correct. Abortion has been available since ancient times. Also your way of phrasing seems to suggest that we didn't live in a civilized world 50 years ago.

Anyways, you don't know the meaning of suffering if you haven't lived in a family where a member has a severe handicap and is fully dependent. Don't judge what you don't understand.

My point was that it may be convenient for the mom and dad, but the child doesn't always deserve to not be born. I thought most people were the same.

You thought wrong. It's estimated that there are over a half-million "at will" abortions performed in this country each year. If Planned Parenthood would allow an audit of its records, that number might be even higher.

Abortions are never performed for the convenience of the unborn child; but only for the mother's own convenience - her emotional, mental, and physical health, as well as her economic capacity.

Firstly, Down Syndrome isn't a severe handicap. Average IQ for DS is 50, with self-care skills on par with IQ. Which means they learn self-care skills when they're twice the age a child normally would (eg being toilet trained around 4-6 instead of 2-3 years) and in adulthood most of them live semi-independently. Sure, there's individual variation, but the majority are not severely disabled at all.

Secondly, your attitude is very prejudiced. I've known some severely disabled people, and I've met their families. They did not seem to be suffering very much at all. Certainly not 'meaning of suffering' level. I've had far more suffering as an abuse victim with PTSD and borderline tendencies than many of the severely disabled people I've met. (One Mom of an LFA foster kid actually told me she'd rather look after a kid like her son than a kid with a history of serious trauma and no developmental disability.)

And lastly, if it does cause suffering for their families, you think they don't deserve to live because of that? That's horrible. We saw what the idea of 'life undeserving of life' did in Nazi Germany.

I'm sure there's people who would argue otherwise.



Doesn't mean that they weren't.



I never said that. The horrible thing is that if their lives cause suffering to their families there's absolutely not a single thing they can do about it. You know, if you want to be a parent that's a huge responsibility. You need to factor in the chance your child will be severely disabled. Very few people are ready to deal with that. If they can avoid it through abortion I believe that's a very considerate decision that should be respected.

Welp....

Considering a DS person will need non stop active care their whole lives, a lot of people don't find it glamorous to take care of a full grown adult with an IQ of 50 or below until they die.

There is the bonus round of DS person having a much higher risk for developing Alzheimers in their 40s, which a friend's family is going through right now.

You have to have almost an upper middle class income to give any disabled child a decent quality of life without the family burning out into a crisp. It includes decent schools, therapies, decent doctors and hospital, supportive family or paid for help.

Since a woman can have an abortion for any reason, why is a DS fetus any different from one that is gestationally normal that gets aborted? If you are going to be outraged include all fetuses.

Anyway, I know more than a few women who have had abortions when it is found out that the fetus is not "normal". It happens more than you think. My friends told me the real reason. They told everyone else it was a miscarriage.

Compared to children without Down syndrome, children with Down syndrome are at higher risk for:

Hearing loss, Obstructive sleep apnea, Ear infections, Eye diseases, Eye issues requiring glasses, heart defects present at birth, Intestinal blockage at birth requiring surgery, Hip dislocation, Thyroid disease, Anemia, Iron deficiency anemia, Leukemia and Hirschsprung disease.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/ ... /data.html

And the medical costs for a child with Down Syndrome in the child's first year is - on average - $ 86,448 compared to $ 8,273 for a child without Down Syndrome. For children with Down Syndrome who have congenital heart disease, the first-year cost is $ 130,524.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/No ... 786e2e.pdf (see page 243)

Well, it depends on your definition. But you said 'fully dependent' - a term used to refer to someone who is dependent on others for all aspects of self-care. That description applies to only a small proportion of people with Down Syndrome.



Doesn't mean they were, either. I think it's unreasonable to assume suffering merely on the presence of a certain severity of disability.

Are you aware that quadriplegic people, on average, have a good quality of life and are glad to be alive? Granted, they have a different disability than the kids I've met, but they're a lot closer to that life than most random people.



And I think it's a selfish decision to choose not to have a child who could have a very rich and fulfilling life just because you don't want the extra work their disability would bring. I don't think 'should I kill my kid because he or she is disabled?' should even be on the table.

If you want to be a parent, I think you have to be ready to handle a disabled child. No amount of prenatal screening will guarantee a non-disabled child. Down Syndrome can be screened out, sure - but quadriplegic cerebral palsy, which is often far more severe, can't be detected before birth. Neither can autism, which can also be a lot more severe than DS.

If you go into parenting thinking 'I only want a normal child', then that's not considerate at all. Considerate of who? The child who is killed rather than live a life that's different but equally valuable? The only people who really benefit from aborting a disabled child are the parents, and making a decision that hurts someone else to benefit yourself is the very definition of selfishness.

Because many people don't want to have children with disabilities like Down Syndrome.

Down syndrome can be very mild, or very severe. Some children with Down syndrome are severely intellectually disabled, and usually they have physical disabilities as well. Sometimes the physical disabilities are mild, and sometimes severe.

Having a severely disabled child affects the whole family. The parents are overwhelmed and stressed financially as well. The other children get less attention. Marriages are often destroyed. The parent must become a caretaker for these kids for the rest of their lives.

I think there's nothing immoral about abortion. I don't believe in any religion. Before 16 weeks, the fetus has nothing even resembling consciousness. The structures are simply not there yet. In fact, there's little evidence that the fetus feels pain until closer to 24 weeks.

Abortion in the first trimester eliminates any possibility of terminating a conscious being that can feel pain. It's undeveloped, and not sentient.

Religious people find it wrong because of their beliefs, and that's fine. But science doesn't support what they say.

I'd much rather abort a child with Down syndrome than give birth to one. I don't care what others do. I think it's wrong (for myself) to knowingly bring a severely disabled child into the world, who then has to deal with being severely disabled, and suffer, and then have to always be taken care of by someone else with no hope of independence.

I wouldn't want that life for myself.

I want children that have the capability to live fulfilling lives and contribute to the world, and to be independent. I really don't care what other people think about it.

During my wife's second pregnancy, the results from her first amniocentesis indicated a possibility of Down Syndrome. Between the time of receiving the results from the 1st test and having a 2nd test administered, we discussed what we would do if that 2nd test came back positive.

It was a very difficult discussion because I knew that neither of us was up to the task of caring for a little one with Down Syndrome. Then again, my wife had already established a bond with the to-be child that was growing inside of her. While I am not a religious person, we decided to speak with our rabbi about the process of making such a difficult decision. Because, once the "cat is out of the bag", you are going to live with that decision - one way or the other.

Fortunately, the second test came back negative. From my perspective, there is no right or wrong answer. I respect whatever decision the couple makes.

How do you know that people with Down's syndrome are suffering and aren't living fulfilling lives? They can be very happy. Shouldn't it be their choice whether they live or not?

They DO contribute to the world, by enriching the lives of their family and friends. Just like all of us do. And they CAN live independently and have jobs.

No, it should not. They aren't aware, or capable of feeling or making any decisions at all at that point. They have no consciousness. Something that has no consciousness, no feelings, doesn't get to choose about what may or may not happen to it.

It's only a potential being, not a being. An embryo is also a potential being. So are sperm and eggs. Until that potential being actually has a consciousness, it is nothing more than a potential person. My consciousness is already here, and I'm already a person, and so I make the choices.

Once the fetus has enough brain development to become conscious, then its feelings matter.

Should I make sure I have as much unprotected sex as possible, so that as many possible future children have a chance to be born? I mean, they might potentially exist, so obviously they should have a say in what happens to them, right?