Down But Not Out

This happy child conveys the inconvenient truth that nine out of ten mothers abort their unborn children when they learn that they pregnant with a Down Syndrome fetus. This is despite research which gives hope to “chromosome therapy” to silence the extra chromosome in Down Syndrome patients.
Lifenews carried a story which many mothers maintain that they terminated the pregnancy not because they wanted a “perfect child”, but because the world is a hard place for a person with intellectual disabilities.  So this is a protective killing, so that the nascent child is not harmed in the future?
In the United Kingdom, there is a non-invasive Ariosa Harmony test which claims a 99% accuracy for predicting Down Syndrome for single babies and 98% for twins with a simple blood test.  The fear is that the National Health Service would use the Ariosa Harmony information to pressure even more mothers to end their Downs Syndrome pregnancy.
This pressure from society and government to avoid the expense and exasperation of having a Down Syndrome child should not be dismissed as something from afar.  In the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare)  HHS Qualified Health Plan provisions which allow for “free” abortifacients.  Moreover, the IPAB (a.k.a Death Panels) may decide that treatments associated with dealing with Down Syndrome people are no longer covered.

About dcbarroco

DCBarroco: The surreal musings of a "party animal" living Between the Beltways, whose favorite contact sport may be politics, but who also has interests that are not poll driven, who thinks beyond the next spin cycle and who will caucus with diverse special interest groups.

Posted on September 16, 2013, in Law, Pensee, World and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.

  1. If mothers could be assured of a world where they would get lots of help to bring up a child; that the child wouldn’t take up all the time they need to give their other kids; and that their children would be cared for after their death, including the certainty that their kid wouldn’t end up in an adult care home where they might be abused, maybe they’d be more willing to keep their children.

    • Bodycrimes seems to agree with protective homicide. Her crystal ball prescription for “keeping” such kids extends to taking up time from other children and prospective adult care abuse.

      Life does not come with the assurances which bodycrimes demands. I know of two Down Syndrome children who have lived happy lives despite their disability, even outliving their parents.

      If such mothers do not feel that they are fit to be parents, there are plenty of prospective parents who would love these children. But I guess that eugenics is easier and less embarrassing.

      • Nice side stepping of serious problems!

      • No side stepping necessary. I don’t subscribe to the “It takes a village to raise a child” mentality and unborn babies are people not choices. Obviously bodycrimes believes otherwise.

        I previously cited two anecdotal examples of Down Syndrome children who lived happy full lives into their 40s and who outlived their parents. Moreover,I noted that there are many sterile prospective parents who will take on children with disabilities but between the politically correct system and euthanasia statistics it is often impossible to place them.

        The meta-questions are what lives are worth living and who decides. Clearly, bodycrimes thinks that babies are choices and exigent attributes can tip the scales. Just wait for IPAB rulings and the whole life system!

      • Wacky third person answer aside, I was listing reasons why real women DO actually abort Down Syndrome children. Tackle those and the rate will come down. Glad that you, personally, know some happy outcomes. That, sadly, can’t be extrapolated across the whole population. Meta questions are only abstractions when real people are faced with real problems.

  2. Bodycrimes,–Thank you for your spirited give and take. Alas, your argument only echo the New York Times cri-de-couer upon which the protective killing point was based.

    The meta questions are quite relevant but to a pro-abortion person they are moot for the moment.

    If it is alright to kill an unborn child with disabilities or because it will be inconvenient begs the meta questions. So establishing the scope of authority and setting the standard for what life should be valued should be easy.

    Bodycrimes offers a paradoxical influences in this euthanizing parameters. Surely, a woman’s choice should be paramount hence individual ethic reigns. Yet in her litany of reasons why women abort Down Syndrome children, it is because society does not help enough. So society has a role. So who will eventually choose?

    IPABs in Obamacare will determine who merits medical health based on society’s valuing of life under the whole life metric. That kind of conflicts with the liberal sacrament of the freedom of “choice” (to kill undesired human life). When individual life is not valued and determinations are driven by what society needs, it is neither pretty for individualism or ethics.

    • Let me try another way. There are very major obstacles to raising a Down’s Syndrome child. One of them is the (often realistic) fear of what will happen to the child after the parents’ death. What I am suggesting is that if some of these obstacles were removed, then maybe parents wouldn’t take the choice to abort.

      Just saying “abortion is bad” doesn’t do anything to promote a real culture of life where Downs Syndrome children might be highly valued. OK, that’s my last post. I suspect you’re reading my answers the way you want to read them.

  3. Bodycrimes I read your last post. You understand protective killing mentality but think that “if some obstacles were removed” for parents of children with intellectual disabilities, maybe they would not take the “choice” to abort.

    My nephew lived into his 50s. lived through the dementia of his mother and the death of his father. He was a simple guy but very happy and loving, but not clueless. The nephew and had a sizable estate from a father who was a modest janitor and did not win a lawsuit jackpot. How could that be? Parents planned for the future (and did not have to pay into have a college fund). Moreover, the nephew did some work and lived in a community house. Parents who embrace life can make it work.

    Although you failed to appreciate the “takes a village” allusion, let me do a reductio ad absurdum–because poor parents are unlikely to provide a college fund, these parents should be directed to abort their children. Such a “modest proposal” is a caring thing to do, as provisions can’t be made for the scion after they have flown their parents’ coup./sarc.

    I don’t read peoples’ hearts, but it strikes me that protective choice for aborting Down Syndrome preganancies, especially for something far into the future is a convenient subterfuge for avoiding messy child-rearing with a noble veneer. To paraphrase the protective choice– I’ll kill you before you go out into the mean world because eventually I won’t be there to look after you.

    Excusing the abortion of Down Syndrome children as a “protective choice” shows the callousness of society. When meta questions are ignored over everyday exigencies, it shows how unborn children are just a “choice” rather than human life which has value. Again, it begs the question about what human life should be valued and who determines that decision

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: