New blood test for fetal DNA can identify Down Syndrome at 10 weeks into pregnancy --

[pnwmom]

much earlier than amnio. And it doesn't carry the risk of miscarriage that amnio carries.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/new-test-downs-other-syndromes-more-accurate-report-finds-n334216

The test, called a cell-free DNA test, detected cases more accurately, a team reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. It also came up with fewer false positives — when a test incorrectly indicates an abnormality, Dr. Mary Norton of the University of California San Francisco and colleagues reported.

"The performance of cfDNA testing was superior to that of traditional first-trimester screening for the detection of trisomy 21 in a routine prenatal population," they wrote in their report.

It's not likely to be the last word on such tests, which are controversial and not yet regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. But the very large size of the trial — nearly 16,000 women — gives it some power. The researchers also included women of all ages, including many not considered at high risk of having a child with a chromosomal abnormality.

But it does provide an option for women to find out very early in pregnancy, Norton said. It can be done as early as 10 weeks into a pregnancy.

SNIP

[BainsBane]

1. I don't like this

It's eugenics. People with downs syndrome contribute to society in many ways, and they teach us valuable lessons in love and acceptance.

[d_r]

2. I 100% support

a woman's right to make whatever decision she wants to make about her own body for whatever reason. It's none of my business.

But I understand where you are coming from and it makes me feel queezy.

What bothers me isn't a woman's decision that she makes, I can't walk in her shoes and decide what she can take on in life.

What bothers me is that we think of children with Down Syndrome as less than other children. It is a terrible bias.

[BainsBane]

4. I agree with that completely

I wouldn't support any law prohibiting it, but it makes me uncomfortable. I do not think humanity is well served by engineering out disabilities and/or imperfections.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. Amen

When you employ A.R.T. You are required to engage in extensive genetic testing. The true cost (our insurance covered it) was about 13K. It enables you to make hard decisions prior to dropping six figures. One of those tests - tested propensity for Downs Syndrome.

It would seem allowing people to get these tests prior to pregnancy would allow everyone to make decisions best for the emotional and financial situation.

And well - be able to say - I do not want the test at all.

Funny - I just responded to a thread about forced sterilization. As a people - we can't be entrusted to make reproductive decisions for anyone but ourselves.

[BainsBane]

10. ART?

What does that stand for?

[JustAnotherGen]

12. Sorry

Assisted Reproductive Technology. The facilities are concerned with their numbers. Number of transfers and healthy births as a result. It's a key marketing technique. So they want to know what they are working with so their numbers/stats aren't impacted.

[BainsBane]

14. Are you saying that if you choose to use that therapy

You are not permitted to forgo genetic testing of the sort discussed in the OP?

[JustAnotherGen]

17. It's prior to pregnancy

Prior to your first IVF or Transfer.

They won't work with you without it.

There are large sums of money being given to them - for something that there is zero guarantee will work. It's an "odds" game to them. What are the odds in this scenario - in that scenario.

If it seems cold - its a cold process in general. I'm immune now.

[BainsBane]

18. To test to see if you are likely to pass on some genetically undesirable condition?

Do they then compel you to have tests after successful fertilization?

[JustAnotherGen]

25. In my case

Nope! They've not made us go through that.

One couple in our group we associate with did test with a high possibility, had something in their bloodwork that showed a chance of downs syndrome, they opted to not even do amniocentesis - and had a perfectly healthy baby. They are in the system because he las low motility and she lost a tube.


I would think the highest age groups that would be compelled to engage in this are the ones with the age related propensity. But just my experience with other women in this journey - we aren't the types who would want to know.

Oh and another couple uses a sperm donor for their IVF and they are young! 32 and 29. RMA wouldn't proceed because they tested so high on quite a few of the genetic defects.

But if people are just knocking boots and "Oops!" Is this really even a concern?

If it doesn't cost you anything other than a bottle of wine and some blues music in the background - isn't it a normal risk?

Don't get me wrong - I'm with your thoughts on this. It leaves me feeling icky. I think for the average conception and pregnancy - its kind of social engineering.

In the ART world - you've signed up to be engineered. You are buying a service which is all about technology and science and literally engineering human beings.

[BainsBane]

28. It truly is complicated

and there is so much to the issue.

[pnwmom]

27. "Compel you"? How many couples would not want to increase their odds

of having a successful pregnancy by implanting only the healthy embryos? Since the whole procedure is already artificial?

I doubt there are many.

[BainsBane]

29. That isn't what she's talking about

read her response. They are screening the parents to see if they are genetically fit, so as not to hurt the companies bottom line by complicating the stats with an imperfect baby.

[REP]

30. They don't want to get sued, too

And yes, some embryos are less likely to be viable.

[pnwmom]

37. But embryos with genetic defects are less likely to successfully implant. What is wrong

with the doctors at these clinics doing what they can to choose the embryos that are most likely to have a successful outcome?

[Barack_America]

61. I think this is more complicated than you might imagine.

Did you know that roughly 1/50 Caucasians are carriers for either cystic fibrosis or spinal muscular atrophy?

Offering targeted carrier screening for all prospective parents is now standard of care.

[pnwmom]

63. Cystic fibrosis is the condition I immediately thought of.

A friend of mine had a daughter with CF many years ago, when it was basically an extended death sentence. It was their first and only child because they couldn't imagine watching another child suffer like that. The beautiful young woman died at the age of 29 -- much longer than they had expected at the outset.

The families involved loved the girl absolutely -- but that doesn't mean any of the relatives would choose to give birth to another child with CF, when genetic testing became available. They had seen the disease up close.

[BainsBane]

65. I'm sure it's more complicated that I imagine

I can't even imagine.

[Barack_America]

66. Well, like I said, I'm willing to answer any questions.

It's complicated medicine, but good medicine, for a number of reasons.

[JustAnotherGen]

95. This - thank you for stepping into this thread

Responded to your other post first. These are ones we don't have either. Note - I'm of Black, Caucasian (where my HLA B27 comes from) and Native descent. My husband can trace his family back to the same church records - 8th century Italy.


This is when race and ethnicity matter - because it helps us make better health decisions for ourselves. It also helps our families. Two of my sisters children carry sickle cell. No history in the family at all. Had I not gone through this - we would never have known.

[Hekate]

68. They are screening the couples because in this litigious society, people have an expectation that...

...when they are paying vast sums of money to get a baby, they will get perfection. Couples who use surrogate mothers have been known to walk away from an imperfect baby.

The companies who are helping infertile couples may find themselves sued out of existence if someone gets a "damaged" baby.

But even more importantly, in families that carry genes for things like Tay-Sachs and hemophilia, the couples themselves most urgently want to not let those terrible diseases be carried forward. They participate in assisted reproduction for the very purpose of genetically engineering their own families, and all I can say is God bless.

[JustAnotherGen]

96. I don't think it's as simple as genetic engineering of their families

Sometimes - its the only choice you have. I look at the young coupe (in their mid 20's) across the street. He had cancer as a kid and is now sterile. It's their only option to have a child. Adoption - having read some of mebzola(sp?) posts - its too complicated. Because of some of her heartfelt posts - I've kind of closed that door.

[Barack_America]

58. Are you talking about carrier screening or karyotyping?

As a reproductive geneticist, I'm interested. You work with RMA?

[JustAnotherGen]

93. I'd have to pull the file

We went through that company based out of Philadelphia - the packet we got back was about an inch and a half thick - and we had a 1 hour review of our results.

Because of prior miscarriages - they did a full work up.

I no longer work with RMA. They are a great facility but we weren't comfortable with their approach.

This weekend I could pull it - I'd be interested in your feedback. But - it was shocking to find out I carried sickle cell. No known history in my father's family.

And the geneticist found my HLA B27 and how it presented very interesting. When I went through my diagnosis for A.S. - my brother got tested for the gene and had his daughter tested. He didn't get it - I did. But he has my dad's family varicose vein issues - so I still think I hit the genetic lottery! no vein stripping for me!

We are totally off topic - but I'd still love your feedback.

[jwirr]

118. Setting in the grocery store yesterday and a little girl with downs walk behind her mother. I said

hello and she was shy but she waved her hand at me. I had worked for years with children like her and she gave me some really great memories yesterday. I also have a disabled child so this new technology is very scary to me. I cannot imagine a world without these loving children.

However I also saw the toll it took on the families so I understand the need for a right to choice.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. It is the woman's choice. No one else's.

You don't approve of the test, then don't have one.

[enough]

5. Right. (nt)

[enlightenment]

7. Exactly.

Choice is up to the individual.

[BainsBane]

9. I am not criticizing or challenging a woman's right to choose

at all. I am talking about scientific efforts to engineer out disability: Eugenics. I am not criticizing individual women's choices. I am saying I am troubled by a social tendency to use science to do away with disability and imperfection, to engineer a superior human race.

As women we have the right to make our own medical decisions, but we also have the rights to free speech and express concerns about scientific ethics.

Would you feel the same if there were a rash to abort all girls, as exists in some countries? Perhaps you would. I am not saying it should be illegal to make such decisions, but rather than I find the social tendency problematic. I would hope people would be capable of understanding nuance rather than insisting no one should speak on any matter that in any way relates to abortion. We are approaching a time period where there will be testing to determine eye color, tendency toward obesity, and other physical characteristics. Women will have the right to choose to abort fetuses for whatever reason they want, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't engage in discussion about what that social practice-as opposed to individual choice--means for humanity.

Corporations don't create these tests to promote a woman's right to choose. They do it to make profits and also because they reflect broader social attitudes about disability.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

13. It's good that you're not criticizing a woman's right to choose.

And the debate is healthy too.

The choice is still for the woman to make, no matter what it's called.

[BainsBane]

15. Or it should be a woman's decision

It seems that in some cases it is not her choice but rather a requirement of the fertility clinic. See JAG's post above.

[Agschmid]

39. If she is at a fertility clinic it appears that she is unable to have a child naturally...

I don't see it as the same thing.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

16. False analogy.

Strawman.

Aborting girls is not the same thing as aborting a trisomy 21 child.

Being a girl is not a disability. Trisomy of Chromosome 21 is.

A lot of people who have handicapped children do not have enough family support or governmental resources to deal with the care of a child with lots of medical needs. And sometimes they cannot deal with it. Or they will have extreme stress-related health problems. Our government in the United States really doesn't want to deal with people who can't take care of themselves, and the resources available can be quite limited. So, yes, these issues need to be discussed.

The mother needs to make these decisions in consultation with the doctors and specialists.

[BainsBane]

21. No where did I suggest the mother shouldn't have that right

What I am having trouble understanding is how people see this only in terms of individual decisions, which I have repeatedly said I do not challenge and would in fact oppose any legal efforts to restrict that choice.

These are tests created to make profit, by a commercial scientific apparatus that promotes a particular notion of humanity. They reflect a broader social attitude of intolerance toward imperfection. That is what I am commenting on, not a woman's individual choice.

[pnwmom]

32. Every pregnancy must be an individual decision.

And it is as much an individual decision whether to use available tests as it is whether to go through with the pregnancy.

This test makes it possible for women who would consider aborting a Downs-disabled fetus to do it at 10 weeks instead of 20. If she's going to have an abortion, the sooner the better.

[Quackers]

24. I don't think it is.

You have to realize that for some cultures, having a girl is a disability. It basically comes down to saying certain lives have more value. For example, male babies have more value than female babies and a "normal" baby has more value than a baby with down syndrome.

[REP]

23. Being born female is not the same as being born with physical and cognitive defects

Down's Syndrome has a whole host of physical abnormalities, not limited to the heart, the gastrointestinal system, and the kidneys. The intellectual impairment can range from profound to moderate. There is no way to predict the severity of any of these - the child could be born with minor physical problems and on the higher end of cognitive function - or not. Prospective parents take this into consideration - you know, the health and happiness of the potential child - as well as their ability to provide care for a child who will always need supervision and may very well outlive them.

How, in any way, does that compare with being born female? If you wish to make the argument that being female is a having physical and cognitive defects, I'll not stop you because I'd very much like to hear that.

[pnwmom]

41. Indirectly, you are. If the tests aren't available, then women don't have the information

they might want in order to make a fully informed choice.

And you are speaking out against the companies that produce these tests.

[pnwmom]

75. Yes, you are. Because you want to deny them information from tests that can help them decide

whether to have an abortion.

[SoCalDem]

98. It may someday be a part of any routine first prenatal visit

and the women would be told of the test and asked if she wanted the results.. That would make any decision hers alone, and early enough to either prepare or to terminate before she told people she was pregnant.

This is what bugs me the most about the whole issue.. MOST women who have terminated (I know several), did it before anyone but their husband/boyfriend even knew, and it was totally confidential.

If you do not want to be pregnant, you do not go around blabbing to everyone about your possible pregnancy until you know for sure...and if you want a baby, it's a glorious time, but if you do not, most people probably do not really want all that much input from acquaintances..

[pnwmom]

99. And the good part of this new DS test, besides being more accurate than CVB,

is that amnio requires you to wait for results till you're about 4 months pregnant. This test can be done at 10 weeks, before you start to "show."

[hifiguy]

124. Bravo, Peggy!

[pnwmom]

8. No one asked you to. But for people who were considering amnio at 20 weeks,

because of a concern about Down Syndrome, this is very good news.

[Ilsa]

11. As a parent of a child with severe disabilities,

I fully support a parent's decision not to go that route. Not very many states have supportive education and policies to help cover the extensive costs of raising a disabled child, or provide support for the family. To quote my doctor, "It's considered normal for the parent of a disabled child to have chronic depression and anxiety for which they need treatment." That affects the other children in the family as well. I would not have chosen this life if I had known during pregnancy.

[trumad]

19. Terrific Post

Thanks for that insight.

[pnwmom]

22. Thanks for your honesty, Ilsa. I don't think anyone should judge any woman

faced with the decision of whether to continue a pregnancy involving a fetus with a disability.

Life is hard enough. Women need to be able to make the decision that's right for them. They don't need to have to bear the weight of the "icky feelings" of those who are viewing the situation from a distance, and through rose-colored glasses.

[Ilsa]

60. Exactly. Thank you.

People don't realize how vulnerable these children are, even after they are grown up, even after we are gone. We live with this anxiety and fear for the rest of our lives.

[pnwmom]

115. All parents probably worry about how their children will do after they're gone.

But with children who will never be able to be independent, the worry must be magnitudes greater.

[Hekate]

71. Thank you, Ilsa

And best wishes for you and your family.

[laundry_queen]

73. Thank you for sharing your story

I have a relative who has a 10 year old child with Down Syndrome. Let's just say that the constant supervision, extensive medical care and lack of support has been extremely hard on my relative. And I do mean constant supervision - her child with DS while cognitively better off than most, has a tendency to leave the house, wander off, or simply gets into trouble in the house. My relative says it's worse than a 2 year old in some ways, because she doesn't remember the lessons from day to day the same way a normal child would. She absolutely cannot be left alone for any length of time. It's exhausting to never get a break. I cannot imagine what she goes through daily (I live on the other side of the country so I don't see her too often).

My relative was someone who was out of the 'typical' high risk group for DS and was not prepared for caring for a child with a disability (she was young, healthy, as was her husband, and her screenings came back normal, including a nuchal fold test). She loves her child, obviously, but is not sure that she would have chosen this given the choice early on in the pregnancy. There is just simply not enough support out there for families with disabled children. Families end up stressed, broke and often divorced. I think it's great if there are more reliable test so that more women can make the decision early on.

[pnwmom]

86. Thank you for sharing this. Yes, with small children you can see them learning and growing every day

And you don't have to worry about them getting Alzheimers before you do.

I'm sure this puts an incredible stress on a family. We knew someone in the same position as your relative -- a certain number of cases aren't age-related and happen to women in their twenties. (With them genetic testing is especially important.) It was heartbreaking.

[d_r]

101. "a normal child"

[laundry_queen]

102. That's your comment here?

Seriously?

[d_r]

106. yeah it is

I am no longer surprised to see people who consider themselves to be liberals or progressives refer to individuals with disabilities with derogatory terms, but it still notice it.

[pnwmom]

111. Where in that post did s/he describe a child with a disability with a derogatory term?

She used a word to denote a "typically" developing child that you objected to. But normal means "conforming to the standard type." That is, it means typical. You're splitting hairs.

[laundry_queen]

158. I'll have to let my cousin know she's being derogatory

seeing as it's her words.

[Ilsa]

104. These children aren't "normal".

Not just their DNA, but their bodies are obviously physically different. Down Syndrome children have other health issues.

With the autism popular, those outside the autism spectrum are considered "neuro-normal."

You can't diminish the reality of disability by attempting to obfuscate what it means to be "normal". Normality is defined by pediatricians, speech & physical & occupational therapists, psychologists, and psychiatrists.

[d_r]

105. language has power

and you are using a derogatory term to describe people with disabilities. The accepted term in those professions you list is "typical" not "normal."

[pnwmom]

112. Typical and normal mean the same thing, professional jargon aside, since normal means

"conforming to standard type."

[d_r]

114. Great

what other groups can you think of to call "not normal?" Homosexuals? Atheists? Wiccans? Really any minority group would work, right?

[pnwmom]

117. Unlike Down Syndrome, being gay is not a disability. It's kind of shocking you would put them

in the same category. Being a member of a minority group is not a disability, either, or the other categories you mentioned.

[d_r]

122. so your bias

is only towards people with disabilities. Got it.

ETA and I'm not sure why you'd be shocked if I asked you if you would consider those groups not normal, since you are the one who defined "normal" as "conforming to the standard type."

But I guess that only applies to disabilities to you also. So you are saying that it is only people with disabilities that you consider not normal.

That must mean that there is something about the words "not normal" that you see as derogatory since you won't use them for other groups that do not "conform to the standard type." So, despite your protests to the contrary, you are are bigoted towards disabled people. You aren't simply using a word that you think is innocuous, you are using a word that you recognize as offensive but think that it is OK to apply to a group that you see as less than you.

[pnwmom]

123. I think it's very strange that anyone who is pro-choice --

who would defend the right of a woman to abort a healthy fetus at 18 weeks -- is opposed to a woman aborting a 10 week fetus that would have a lifelong serious disability.

Or maybe you're not pro-choice. In that case we really don't have anything to talk about because we won't convince each other.

[d_r]

126. so now

You are back to your purity test. Sorry but your bigotry towards living breathing people with disabilities has nothing to do with a woman's right to choose.

[pnwmom]

136. Okay, you're a right-to-lifer. That puts everything into context. Thanks. n/t

[d_r]

141. Seriously.

I'll recap for you to help with the context that you are trying to miss.

I didn't say you were bigoted towards individuals with different abilities because you said that a woman should have the right to an abortion if she chooses so for a fetus with Down Syndrome.

On the contrary, I agree with that, and moreover I would say that for whatever reason a woman decides to have an abortion or not. It isn't my business. It is a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body for whatever reason.

I said you were bigoted towards individuals with different abilities because you called them not normal, a term that you would not use for any other group because you know it is derogatory. You use that term because you feel that those individuals are inferior to you.

The way you talk about living and breathing human beings and feel that they are inferior to you
has nothing to do with abortion or my opinions about it, as much as you'd like to cop out.

[pnwmom]

143. Another poster, not me, referred to children with Downs Syndrome and then to "normal children."

I was defending her use of the word in the context she used it. She clearly wasn't disparaging children with Downs.

When my doctor gave me the results of my amnio, he said: "The fetus is fine. The results are normal." Doctors everywhere still use the word "normal" to refer to genetic profiles that don't contain known anomalies. So their patients do too. It doesn't have anything to do with feeling superior, just using the word "normal" in the same way much of the medical community uses it. If my child had had DS, my doctor would not have said the results were normal.

[Ilsa]

147. Thank you...

Medical people do use the words "normal", "abnormal" "typical" "atypical" all ghe time as descriptive terms, to differentiate, completely without judgment.

I'm going to use the word "typical" now:
I have found it to be typical that some judgmental posters seem to enjoy accusing the flesh-and-blood relatives of disabled children of thinking of them as less than human. It makes me wonder if that is their mindset.

[uppityperson]

145. Ilsa used the term "normal" pnw was trying to explain the term.Why accuse her of something she didnt

write?

Why this nastiness?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6450051

[d_r]

149. she is the one that explained it

that she meant it in a derogatory way. That she would use that word for people with disabilities, but not for other groups. She knows it is derogatory.

[pnwmom]

153. I said no such thing. I said the opposite. I said it wasn't meant in a derogatory way.

But you still don't get it. Being gay is NOT equivalent to having a serious mental and physical disability like D.S.

[hifiguy]

130. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it, pnwmom? nt

[Ilsa]

128. you're talking shades of language my child

will never understand. So no, it won't matter to him At All.

[d_r]

142. It matters to him quite a bit

when you teach society to frame your child as less human than they are.

[Ilsa]

144. He's only less human in your eyes.

You just said so, that my error in terminology caused this. (Geez, with all the extra things I have to remember to care for him, you pick a bone with me over this? WTF?)

Everyone else in his world treats him as deserving special attention, help, consideration. Only jerks would suggest that anyone thinks he's less.

[d_r]

150. the term that was used

was not normal.
That this was OK to call people with disabilities.
That it isn't ok to call anyone else.
So that means the person views people with disabilities as less than they are.
I guess I am glad that you don't see that bias, but you are empowering it.

[pnwmom]

155. Your conclusions are wrong. "Not normal" are the same words that mother's doctor

would say about her child. Why criticize her for using the medical terminology she was given instead of your preferred terms? No pretty words are going to paper over the profound challenges she and her child face.

[Ilsa]

157. Your diatribe is as offensive as the woman's who told me

"You're not raising your child God's way." There's always someone who thinks they know my child and these children better than we do.

I haven't met anyone caught up in semantics, even my son's doctors' terms, the way you are. And they have dedicated their careers to helping these people with special needs.

Your claim that I'm empowering discrimination is only a reflection of your heart.

[pnwmom]

154. Wow. The level of arrogance is mind-boggling.

Remember who you are talking to, please. A loving parent who lives with a disabled child every single day and has been honest about what a challenge this poses. You don't know this family's situation at all. Have a heart.

[Ilsa]

103. I can identify with her having to constantly supervise...

Mine tends to be a wanderer and has no sense of people danger.

It's hard to feel like you're leading a productive life when your "baby" never grows up. It affects (usually the mother's) careers, spousal relationships, even family of origin relationships. It affects friendships because mothers of toddlers usually grow apart because it's so hard to watch your best friend's kids develop normally, accomplish the normal childhood stuff and go to college. We are stuck in childhood. We don't see ourselves ever becoming grandparents. Yes, we miss out on all of the normal stuff most people look forward to in their lives.

Sorry for rambling, but this is our reality.

[pnwmom]

113. And the more ability those children have, the more you might have to watch them suffer

as they realize that they can't do everything their peers can't do, and as they watch their former friends move off into spheres where they can't follow.

I'm sure it is very very hard.

[KittyWampus]

148. the Dominican Sisters might be willing to come to your house and "babysit" for some length of time,

each day, for free.

[madfloridian]

91. Powerful post.

Courageous. Thank you.

[Butterbean]

134. Agreed.

I have a special needs child, too, and I have no idea what I would have done, given the choice to terminate if I'd known before hand in the first trimester.

It's tricky. Biological parents of special needs children aren't saints, and we didn't choose this life, it was handed to us. People say, "I don't know how you do it." Well, you haven't really got a choice, do you? You do it. It's your child, so you do it. The end. It's hard, and exhausting, and I have cried so much and had so many life-changing, gut-wrenching moments since my child was born that I've had shrinks tell me I have mild to moderate PTSD. *shrug* Who knows.

At any rate, no woman should have a gun held to her head and be forced to have a child she doesn't want, ever. If people want to adopt special needs children and choose that life on purpose, God bless you and you are a much stronger person than I could ever aspire to be.

[jeff47]

20. The same test should detect other trisomies.

Multiple sex chromosomes doesn't cause large problems. Mostly it hurts fertility.

Trisomy 21 is Downs.

All the other trisomies are fatal, either causing a miscarriage or the baby dying within a year.

Detecting those other trisomies earlier would be a good thing in all cases. Either give the mother more time to prepare, or make it safer for her to abort, if she chooses that route. And since amniocentesis can cause miscarriage, this is a much better way to do these genetic tests.

[Barack_America]

31. This test also detects 13 and 18, which are the only other viable trisomies.

[jeff47]

35. Both of those have live expectancy of a year, with about 10% living to their teens (nt)

[REP]

26. People with Down's aren't here to teach us anything. They're here to live their lives.

That ableist attitude is so condescending and sickening. People with Down's are just people - treat them as such.

[BainsBane]

38. More sickening than scientifically engineering them out of existence?

Yes, they are here to live their lives, of course. But people do contribute to society in different ways. My own experience was shaped by growing up with a neighbor boy with Down's Syndrome, for whom I baby sat for many years. He was my friend and I cared about him very much. Due to that experience I went on to work in social work for a number of years. His purpose was not to teach me anything. His life is his own. I nonetheless grew from having known him, which is what much of human friendship and interaction does.

I think your claim that there is something sickening in my finding value in all human lives is pretty ridiculous, particularly in a context of a thread where those lives are treated as genetic deformities to be done away with. Your response to me is messed up.

[uppityperson]

46. Not every parent will get this test, it isn't mandated.

For those for whom it matters it is great to be able to find out sooner.

For those who do not care, they will continue to have babies without being tested and as now some will have Down's.

[pnwmom]

53. Exactly. n/t

[pnwmom]

52. This isn't genetic engineering. This is identifying a serious disability in fetuses that are already in existence

not made in a lab.

And for you to complain about this is tantamount to complaining about the decisions women make every day -- by themselves -- as to whether to continue their pregnancies, for whatever reason they choose.

[Feron]

146. Yes.

I find the patronizing and the disgusted attitude towards the disabled far worse than selective abortion.

I'm autistic. If my mother aborted me, then I wouldn't have existed to care.

And I don't harbor any ill will against women who make the decision to abort. It's not a matter of perfect, but rather of what can I handle?! Resources for people with disabilities are scarce and even more so for caretakers.

It's not selfish to acknowledge that you aren't up to the job of parenting a special needs child. It's honest and it's best not to bring a child into the world for all parties involved.

I'm a person. I'm not here to be a living afterschool special to teach people life lessons. Nor am I a special angel, super evolved, or whatever bullshit term is in vogue.

I'm just me.

Just treat people respectfully. Don't talk down to or patronize them. Make sure people who need accommodations and assistance get what they need.

And disability isn't something that will go away even with the best tests. Us mutants will always be around and there will always be neurotypical people joining the disability club.

Treating the people that already exist better would do more to help the disabled than banning selective abortions ever would.

[HereSince1628]

33. I too have concerns about this...I've lived in Town of Jefferson, WI, where St Coletta's Home was

oThat's the 'retreat' to which the Kennedy's sent their famously lobotomized daughter.

St. Coletta's, until the Kennedy's pulled the plug when their lobotomized family member died, was a home for Down Syndrome persons.

That made Jefferson WI quite an unusual place, because Down syndrome/"Mongies" were not uncommon in the community. Because of that, people in the Town of Jefferson, understand this genetic malady comes in quite a range of expression.

Some of the afflicted were not able to be trusted with activities of daily living. Randy, a downs syndrome person living at St Coletta's but working in town is someone I knew personally over a period of about 15 year. He was very high performing and at different times he served as a part time assistant manager of both a liquor store and as a clerk in a family hardware store.

Unless a mother can know with high probability just how Down's Syndrome will be expressed, making decisions to abort are like throwing dice.

The disabled -are- people too. Their lives should matter enough that results from a tool suggesting how their life may be, should have many checks to be certain it is not over-interpreted.

This is a family's choice, I respect that. But it's hardly straight forward

[Barack_America]

44. Not eugenics at all.

Trisomies are a natural error of human reproduction that cannot be "weeded out" by termination of pregnancies afflicted with them.

As for termination of pregnancies with trisomies, is it Down you are only against, or also the other two that can survive to birth (but not much longer)?

Are you also aware of the significant health challenges faced by Down children, including much greater rate of stillbirth, duodenal atresia, debilitating cardiac defects, early onset Alzheimer's, etc. The physical, emotional and financial toll of these disorders on a woman and family?

I'm actually a reproductive geneticist by trade, so I'm happy to answer any of your questions.

[pnwmom]

50. Thank you for your informed perspective.

I only know one family with a child with Downs. It's not a challenge every family can face.

[BainsBane]

69. Boy

My knowledge of any of this is close to non-existent. I didn't know what you said about higher rates of still birth. My experience is in having known people with Downs and working in special education for a time many years ago.

If as you say they can't be "weeded out," what is the purpose of the testing discussed in this article?
I remember my mother telling me that our neighbor thought her son's condition had been brought about because she had come into contact with someone with German Measles while pregnant. I don't know if that is actually even a cause.

I can imagine family challenges are great, and it's not my place to tell someone they should have to give birth and raise a Downs child. I do not, however, think humanity is served by doing away with all supposed disabilities and deficiencies. Firstly, normality is socially constructed, not absolute. Not long ago, doctors considered homosexuality a disorder. Imagine if the ability to screen for sexuality had existed back then? And what if scientists devise tests to determine predisposition toward mental illness, undesirable personality traits, or genetic characteristics that make someone less than beautiful? I suppose it's the ongoing dilemma, certainly not limited to genetics, of ethics in the face of rapidly advancing scientific capability.

[pnwmom]

72. I would welcome a test to screen for schizophrenia, and I think most people would.

But again, each decision has to be made by the family involved -- and only by them.

[BainsBane]

79. Yes, why not test all of us out of existence

Create the master race. Hitler was on to something there.

[pnwmom]

87. Hitler? Your hyperbole is getting tiresome. No one's forcing anything on you.

You obviously don't support a woman's right to choose, no matter how many times you pretend that you do. Instead, you judge and condemn women who would make different choices than you.

No, we're not Nazi's and we're not trying to create the master race. We're just trying to make decisions on our own about our own families.

[Mariana]

109. I have to wonder...

Are you opposed to ALL abortions, or only those that take place because testing has revealed a disease or disability in the fetus?

[uppityperson]

76. Even if there were no babies born with Down's for a generation, still genetic problems will

continue to happen as chromosomal errors are common. That is what is meant by "Trisomies are a natural error of human reproduction that cannot be "weeded out" by termination of pregnancies afflicted with them. "

What the purpose of this testing is is to give parents information to make an informed choice about what they want to do. It is not for eugenics since those chromosomal issues will continue to happen, Down's will pop up again and again, here and there.

To deny parents the knowledge about potentially severe problems because someone "down the line" may decide to create a baby with particular traits is wrong, imo.

[BainsBane]

81. I'm not saying I know what the solution is

but the idea of testing to screen for any perceived imperfection creeps the hell out of me.

[pnwmom]

85. The OP is not about testing for any imperceived imperfection. It is about testing for Down Syndrome,

at 10 weeks, instead of much later when amnio can be done.

It seems strange that you've never been able to acknowledge that if a woman is going to get an abortion, it is better to do it at 10 - 12 weeks than at 18 or 20. And that is the value of this test, besides being more accurate than CVB.

[uppityperson]

121. Having worked with parents who have made the choice to abort and to bear, I am glad there are

tests to screen for things like Down's syndrome. Some parents chose to not have such a child, some chose to continue the pregnancy with the foreknowledge of what they will need to have set up before birth.

I would not judge, do not judge, them either choice they make.

Raising a severely disabled child is not an easy task, both during the raising and for the parent's entire life and beyond. Having the information to be prepared can be very helpful. For those deciding to not have the child, often they try again, becoming pregnant with another.

[hifiguy]

125. Don't go confusing people with actual science.

There are some around here who are very nearly as hostile to science as the fundys are.

[kelly1mm]

57. I too am uneasy with this. If/when we have a test that can ID genetic markers for homosexuality,

should it be legal to abort simply for that reason? What if you only want girls. Should it be legal to abort all boy pregnancies?

If it should remain legal to abort based on gender or sexual orientation, does that also mean broader society cannot condem those actions (shunning basically?)

It gets tricky.

[uppityperson]

59. I do not understand that argument, to disallow a test that some will be happy to have available

in making an informed choice about their pregnancy and potential offspring because at some point we may be able to test for other characteristics.


"If it should remain legal to abort based on ..., does that also mean broader society cannot condemn those actions (shunning basically?) ".
I read this as saying it is bad to have society not be able to condemn a woman getting an abortion, that condemning and shunning someone for having an abortion for reasons you may disagree with is a good thing to do. Please tell me I read that wrong. Thank.

[kelly1mm]

78. If someone told you that they aborted just for the sole reason that they wanted a girl and the

pregnancy was a boy, so they aborted, you would not have a problem with that person? I am NOT saying that I would make that choice illegal, just that if someone aborted the pregnancy for that reason alone I would probably have a problem with that person.

Likewise, if there is/was a genetic marker found for homosexuality (or conversely for heterosexuality) and someone told me they aborted for the sole reason that they did not want to have a homosexual (or heterosexual) child, I would find that choice abhorrent.

[uppityperson]

120. I do not understand that argument, to disallow a test that some will be happy to have available

in making an informed choice about their pregnancy and potential offspring because at some point we may be able to test for other characteristics.

To address your reply to the last part of my post, no. I do not judge people's choices as I do not know their reasons for the choice.

[kelly1mm]

129. Great! I will put you down as one who would not judge someone aborting their homosexual

pregnancy because 'they hate the gayz!".

Maybe I am just not as enlightened as you are.

[uppityperson]

131. Strawman. You still did not address my point.

I do not understand that argument, to disallow a test that some will be happy to have available in making an informed choice about their pregnancy and potential offspring because at some point we may be able to test for other characteristics.

Here, I'll simplify.

Explain how it is ok to deny someone the ability to test for Down's syndrome because at some point in the future a similar test might be used to test for other characteristics.

[kelly1mm]

133. I did not address your point as I NEVER said anywhere in this thread that the tests for

Down's Syndrome should not be available. Likewise I NEVER anywhere in this thread said a hypothetical test for the genetic markers for homosexuality/heterosexuality should not be available. And I never said that one should not be able to know the sex of the fetus.

However I AM making a point that if a person choses to abort a pregnancy based solely on the results of the gender or sexuality of the pregnancy, and that person told me the reason they did that, I would have a VERY big problem with that.

Clear now?

[uppityperson]

135. You said "I too am uneasy with this", a test for Down's syndrome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6449080

You are "uneasy" with a test that can tell if a fetus has Down's syndrome because at some point in the future a test might be available to test for other characteristics.

I do not understand that argument.

Thank you for clarifying that you are not against the test, but are simply uneasy at how tests in the future may be use.

[kelly1mm]

139. I am uneasy with the concept of aborting a pregnanacy for certain reasons such as

sex selection (which is available now). I can see how some would be uneasy with a

I am not uneasy with a test for Down's Syndrome.
I am not uneasy with a test for gender, which we have now.
I am not uneasy with a test for sexuality, which we may someday have.

I am uneasy with the concept of gender based abortion.
I am uneasy with the concept of sexuality based abortion.
I am can see why some would be uneasy with the concept of aborting based on Down's Syndrome (or blindness, or deafness, or etc) alone.

Again, if someone told me that they aborted their (straight/gay, male/female, deaf/hearing, blind/seeing) pregnancy for that reason alone, I would indeed have a problem with them.

Others, like you apparently, would not have a problem with that because you don't judge.

Feel free to call me judgmental in this area.

[uppityperson]

140. Thank you for taking time to clarify.

Having worked with abortion providers, yes, I learned to not judge because there are always factors I am aware of. That is me, my experience and training.

[pnwmom]

62. How can society shun if women's private medical decisions remain private?

So much harder to go on a witch-hunt that way.

[kelly1mm]

80. They can't. I would hope that is someone I knew aborted a pregnancy because of gender or sexual

orientation that they kept that fact to themselves. If they told me that they aborted a boy (or girl) pregnancy because they wanted the other sex, I would find them and their choice abhorrent.

[BainsBane]

67. Yet you can't outlaw terminating pregnancy for those reasons

because it is impossible to know someone's mind and it would certainly result in even greater infringements on a woman's right to choose. Any limitations would have to be at testing.

[pnwmom]

74. "Any limitations would have to be at testing." You want to limit testing as a way to limit abortions.

Therefore, you DO want to limit other people's right to make fully informed choices about whether to have abortions.

[BainsBane]

83. I've written reams in this thread

and I've about had it with your crap. There is pretty clear context to follow. The poster made a reference to the potential legality of screening for sex. Since you found it so objectionable that anyone might have a problem with engineering an entire sex out of existence, I will then presume that you support the abortion of all male fetuses upon testing. That is the level of crap you have given me. I've written a number of careful, thoughtful posts in response to this thread. That doesn't interest you, so I'll make it really simple: No, I don't think Hitler had it right. I don't support testing to create the master race. In fact, I find it fucking fascist, literally. Nor do I believe that the neoliberal cult of individual choice is the highest level of social consciousness. So you go ahead and worry about ensuring the wealthy can buy their genetically engineered perfect race for the future. I won't be part of it, but then nor will most of the imperfect human race that can't even get access to basic medical care.

Clearly the time I have spent in trying to have a thoughtful discussion with you was a complete waste of time.

[pnwmom]

84. Temper, temper!

This is what you call a thoughtful discussion?

[Lancero]

89. Jury results, leave 2-5

I've written reams in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6449520

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

In this and other posts, the poster accuses the OP of being like Hitler and a Nazi because she wrote an OP about a genetic test and supports a woman's right to choose.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 2, 2015, 01:48 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: " I will then presume that you support the abortion of all male fetuses..."

Ah, the old MRA talking point about how 'womens rights' mean 'death to men'.

Voting to hide for OTT usage of a MRA talking point, and the completely inappropriate comment saying that supporters of a womans right to choose are a 'cult'
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sounds to me like she was baited to the point of getting fed up, then alerted upon, probably by the same person who baited her. Under other circumstances I might hide, but this looks like a hit job.

[Flying Squirrel]

90. AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

On Thu Apr 2, 2015, 01:39 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I've written reams in this thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6449520

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

In this and other posts, the poster accuses the OP of being like Hitler and a Nazi because she wrote an OP about a genetic test and supports a woman's right to choose.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 2, 2015, 01:48 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: " I will then presume that you support the abortion of all male fetuses..."

Ah, the old MRA talking point about how 'womens rights' mean 'death to men'.

Voting to hide for OTT usage of a MRA talking point, and the completely inappropriate comment saying that supporters of a womans right to choose are a 'cult'
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sounds to me like she was baited to the point of getting fed up, then alerted upon, probably by the same person who baited her. Under other circumstances I might hide, but this looks like a hit job.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

(I was Juror #7)

[kelly1mm]

82. Right, I agree I think. It is hard to know that in protecting all women's right to choose we

are allowing some small portion of those choices to be , in my opinion, morally questionable.

If you want to say that a woman should be allowed to abort a pregnancy because of the gender or sexual orientation of a child I will agree with you that it should be legal. That does not mean that I have to agree with that choice or that I cannot (if I find out that was the reason - like she tells me) think badly of her for making that choice.

Basically what I am saying is if some friend of mine came up to me and said they just got an abortion because the fetus was a male and they wanted a female (or vice versa) I would 1) be shocked and 2) probably terminate the relationship after a few choice words to the person.

[Hekate]

70. I completely support YOUR choice to carry such a fetus to term, have the baby, and have the kid...

...very likely be dependent on you for the rest of YOUR life. Don't forget to appoint a guardian for when you die, too.

The woman a few streets over from me who goes walking with her daughter every afternoon is a case in point. The woman is over 70. Her daughter is (I'm not sure) maybe 40? The daughter loves our doggy, but she hardly speaks and has deficits in her vision and hearing, and is a bit wobbly on her feet. This is the Down's kid you don't hear about.

What is going to happen to the daughter if her mother predeceases her? Did her siblings sign up for this, or are they busy with their own jobs and families? Or maybe she was an only child -- I don't know.

So, whatever joyous lessons this loving mother has learned, it never ends.

I have no advice or opinion on what women choose to do, but you betcha I want them to have a choice in the matter without being guilted by pro-birthers of any political persuasion at all.

[haikugal]

92. This^^^^^^

Given a choice I would abort. I have one child and happily he is healthy but I thought long and hard before I brought him into this world. I couldn't in good faith provide for a child that would not be able to fend for themselves. I couldn't do it.

Having tests like this is wonderful. Why would anyone want to bring a child into a world of suffering when it can be prevented. I don't consider these children 'gods gifts' or 'teachers'..I can learn life lessons anywhere if I'm paying attention and don't need to have another human being's suffering teach me anything. They are people, they didn't have a choice. I've known and cared for such a child and he was the youngest of 3, his mother blamed herself and the marriage didn't last.

These tests are wonderful. Having the information available to make an informed decision based in reality rather than emotionality is wonderful. Call me cold, but I think a parent should give their offspring every chance to thrive and we all have to think about the cost of raising a child as well.

This has nothing to do with fascism...it's science and like immunization, a good thing. We will always have genetic errors, now we might get to the place where we can correct them...in the future.

I had a beautiful stud colt that everyone wanted to breed their mares to but I wouldn't because he had an undescended testicle. Having him neutered was a nightmare. I wouldn't do that to another colt by taking the risk of my guy passing it along.

Just my two cents.

[pnwmom]

119. Thank you for your clear-headed honesty. n/t

[pnwmom]

88. There are already at least two types of testing for DS later in pregnancy.

What don't you like about being able to get the information, with more accurate results, at 10 weeks instead of much later?

Or are you saying you want to eliminate all genetic testing? Or that you want to be the judge of what kind of testing is acceptable?

[leftyladyfrommo]

116. Wow. Talk about something that brings up lots of issues.

No one can make these kinds of decision for anyone else.

But I want to also say that my life has been greatly enriched by knowing many handicapped children and adults. They were some of the nicest people that I have ever known.

[KamaAina]

127. It's only eugenics if the women are encouraged to choose abortion

which, sadly, seems to most often be the case. They're getting counseling from health care professionals, who, like most people, have a lot of internalized ableism, rather than from people with Down's themselves, like Chris Burke, the actress from Glee, or the young woman who was voted homecoming queen.

[lumberjack_jeff]

132. File this under "Things you don't see every day".

I agree.

[Jenoch]

152. I agree with you.

I have known several people with Down's and found each one of them to be inspirational. One in particular was several years older than me and was at every single high school sporting event in my hometown. Just a couple weeks ago there was a great story out of Kenosha, Wisconsin. In case you missed it:

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/tmj4/news/Basketball-players-defend-cheerleader-targeted-by-bully-295810851.html

[onecaliberal]

34. As a parent I can tell you that it scares the hell out of me

To think about what will happen to him when I am gone.

[pnwmom]

36. I'm sure it does. I have an old friend from college whose brother is severely mentally disabled.

Luckily, his parents were wealthy enough to set up a trust that took the burden off the two sisters, and he's in a very good place. But families without a lot of money -- or willing siblings -- I don't know how they manage.

I'm sorry you have that to worry about. It's hard enough being a parent to children without disabilities.

[uppityperson]

40. Thank you.

Thank you.

[pnwmom]

45. Fine. The word refers to a developmental lag,

in other words, the development is slowed. But I understand that people who lopped off the third syllable turned it into a slur.

[uppityperson]

48. Thank you, I appreciate it. eom

[onecaliberal]

42. He is my first born, wouldn't trade him for anything.

My family has definitely been through the ringer. Thanks for the kind words.

[pnwmom]

47. I'm sorry if it bothered you

that I used the word "mentally retarded." When I first met the young man, that is the word his family used to describe him. At some point it became a pejorative term but I certainly didn't mean it that way.

[onecaliberal]

49. I was not offended because of the context you used it.

[haikugal]

94. My heart goes out to you..

[JustAnotherGen]

97. No subject

I can't imagine that anxiety.

[onecaliberal]

108. Just try to take it day by day and do what I can to

Make it as good as it can be for him.

[uppityperson]

43. For those who want to know and get tested, this would be a wonderful thing.

For those who don't, then don't get tested.

It isn't a mandated test, and but for those who it makes a difference to, this would be very good.

[Barack_America]

51. It is good. This can be done 3 weeks earlier than the standard...

...biochemical and ultrasound tests. If a woman decides to terminate, the earliest she can have that done will be better for her health.

Additionally, the lower rate of false positives will result in less follow-up CVS and amnio procedures, which come at a risk of infection and miscarriage. The 10 week timeline almost guarantees the option of CVS, rather than amnio, which itself carries less risk.

All around, it is a good development for those interested in prenatal screening.

[LatinPride]

54. Either you support a woman's right to choose, or you don't. The reason can't matter.

I personally think it's sick, but a cousin of mine aborted two fetuses because they were female. She and her husband wanted only one child, and wanted it to be male. I nonetheless would not support legislation to make this illegal, because, other issues aside, it is impossible to police motive.

[pnwmom]

64. Right. It is impossible to police motive, without a complete violation of privacy. Welcome to DU! nt

[tandot]

55. I was pregnant with our son when I was 45 and we had amniocentesis

it was at much about him as it was about us. Who would take care of him if we were to die? Would he end up in an institution? Who would make sure that he is alright? Would anyone love him as much as I would? Would he understand what is happening? There are degrees of downs ... would he be somewhat functional or totally dependent?

Nothing indicated that he had downs but he still was delivered early and had to be in intensive care for 2 weeks. He is doing great now, although is is below 2nd percentile for his weight (he is almost average for height). He is a big, skinny, dude at almost 6 years.

I think I could have accepted to have an abortion, if I would have felt that it was in the best interest of my then unborn child.

Even now, my husband and I always talk about it ... how we were sure that, at our age, we wouldn't have a "normal" pregnancy and a child that can function somewhat in this society. How, despite all odds, we just have a "normal" kid ... someone who could survive in a society like ours ... anyone with less than that will have a hard time making it

[pnwmom]

56. We also had amnio for our last pregnancy

and I was very relieved when it was normal. I would NEVER judge anyone who decided to have an abortion because it was a very scary time for us. I didn't want to have an abortion -- who would, at 20 weeks? (it took that long to get the results). But I didn't know how we could handle some of the disabilities it uncovers.

So I thought this test would be so much better. I think there's a lot of veiled right-to-life sentiment being expressed in this thread. But each woman can only make the decision for herself, and only she can decide what tests she needs and how she will make the decision.

[Hekate]

77. Thanks for starting this thread, pnwmom

I think this medical advance is a wonderful thing. It is very far from "eugenics" in that it gives women choices and information, and is not forced on anyone.

I had my kids 40 years ago. There doesn't seem to be anything that "runs in our family," except for severe myopia; thank God. Even then, in my late 20s, I knew there were terrible diseases passed along some families, and I knew if that were the case in mine I would simply forgo having children at all unless there were a way of ensuring a healthy child who was not himself a carrier.

Huntington's. Hemophilia. Tay-Sachs. Cystic fibrosis. These things bring a shudder -- that you would have to watch your child die by inches, sometimes in a few years, and sometimes over many years.

How is it a bad thing to weed out this kind of horror?

As for Down's and other conditions that are just kind of random and not inherited, it's odd and sad that you and I are hearing the same vibe: pro-birth and right-to-life, without the woman being seen as a moral agent in her own life. Allowing women to make their own choices is not in any sense the same as disrespecting disabled people who already exist.

[KitSileya]

100. After this becomes available, it becomes even more important to support choice

Because you can bet your bottom dollar that this will be used as an excuse to cut funding for programs that help persons with Down's syndrome, and other genetically caused conditions. Choice goes both ways, and we must support both the women that choose abortion, and those who choose to keep the fetus. We must be very aware of the dangers of implicit eugenics, where those who choose not to abort a fetus with Down's syndrome are blamed and forced to manage on their own, with the rationale that they knew the consequences and had another option.

[pnwmom]

110. I haven't seen the availability of amniocentesis or CVB being used in that manner.

The Rethugs have never seen a need to justify cutting funding for any social service programs, except for always saying taxes are too high.

[Feron]

151. No excuses needed

The disabled, particularly ones who don't work, are already seen as useless eaters and subhuman.

Benefits and assistance programs are eagerly gutted and often by people who profess to be Christian. Because Reagan Jesus believes that disability is only a family responsibility and not a societal one.

A genetic test won't make things worse.

Pushing for societal change for the better treatment of the disabled is the only way to make things better.

[dembotoz]

107. mother of my first child-therapist at a sheltered workshop-tested the shit out of our son's fetus

full amnio
everything

she worked everyday with kids with severe problems an no way was she open for that.

as i see how services become diminished under the gop

would do the same thing again

[Freddie]

156. My best friend works with developmentally disabled adults

Many of her co-workers are young women and they too always get prenatal testing. They see what life is like not just for their clients but their frazzled, often elderly parents, and do everything possible to avoid the issue with their own children.
My friend also said that more than one of these parents told her "I love him but if I'd had a choice about this..."

[LanternWaste]

137. The intersection of ethics and science can be fascinating to observe and read.

The intersection of ethics and science can be fascinating to observe and read.

[pnwmom]

138. But very painful to live through. n/t