General Discussion

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)

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

Wed Apr 1, 2015, 09:21 PM

Apr 2015

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

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

158 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

New blood test for fetal DNA can identify Down Syndrome at 10 weeks into pregnancy -- [View all] pnwmom Apr 2015 OP

I don't like this BainsBane Apr 2015 #1

I 100% support d_r Apr 2015 #2

I agree with that completely BainsBane Apr 2015 #4

Amen JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #6

ART? BainsBane Apr 2015 #10

Sorry JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #12

Are you saying that if you choose to use that therapy BainsBane Apr 2015 #14

It's prior to pregnancy JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #17

To test to see if you are likely to pass on some genetically undesirable condition? BainsBane Apr 2015 #18

In my case JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #25

It truly is complicated BainsBane Apr 2015 #28

"Compel you"? How many couples would not want to increase their odds pnwmom Apr 2015 #27

That isn't what she's talking about BainsBane Apr 2015 #29

They don't want to get sued, too REP Apr 2015 #30

But embryos with genetic defects are less likely to successfully implant. What is wrong pnwmom Apr 2015 #37

I think this is more complicated than you might imagine. Barack_America Apr 2015 #61

Cystic fibrosis is the condition I immediately thought of. pnwmom Apr 2015 #63

I'm sure it's more complicated that I imagine BainsBane Apr 2015 #65

Well, like I said, I'm willing to answer any questions. Barack_America Apr 2015 #66

This - thank you for stepping into this thread JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #95

They are screening the couples because in this litigious society, people have an expectation that... Hekate Apr 2015 #68

I don't think it's as simple as genetic engineering of their families JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #96

Are you talking about carrier screening or karyotyping? Barack_America Apr 2015 #58

I'd have to pull the file JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #93

Setting in the grocery store yesterday and a little girl with downs walk behind her mother. I said jwirr Apr 2015 #118

It is the woman's choice. No one else's. CaliforniaPeggy Apr 2015 #3

Right. (nt) enough Apr 2015 #5

Exactly. enlightenment Apr 2015 #7

I am not criticizing or challenging a woman's right to choose BainsBane Apr 2015 #9

It's good that you're not criticizing a woman's right to choose. CaliforniaPeggy Apr 2015 #13

Or it should be a woman's decision BainsBane Apr 2015 #15

If she is at a fertility clinic it appears that she is unable to have a child naturally... Agschmid Apr 2015 #39

False analogy. Manifestor_of_Light Apr 2015 #16

No where did I suggest the mother shouldn't have that right BainsBane Apr 2015 #21

Every pregnancy must be an individual decision. pnwmom Apr 2015 #32

I don't think it is. Quackers Apr 2015 #24

Being born female is not the same as being born with physical and cognitive defects REP Apr 2015 #23

Indirectly, you are. If the tests aren't available, then women don't have the information pnwmom Apr 2015 #41

Yes, you are. Because you want to deny them information from tests that can help them decide pnwmom Apr 2015 #75

It may someday be a part of any routine first prenatal visit SoCalDem Apr 2015 #98

And the good part of this new DS test, besides being more accurate than CVB, pnwmom Apr 2015 #99

Bravo, Peggy! hifiguy Apr 2015 #124

No one asked you to. But for people who were considering amnio at 20 weeks, pnwmom Apr 2015 #8

As a parent of a child with severe disabilities, Ilsa Apr 2015 #11

Terrific Post trumad Apr 2015 #19

Thanks for your honesty, Ilsa. I don't think anyone should judge any woman pnwmom Apr 2015 #22

Exactly. Thank you. Ilsa Apr 2015 #60

All parents probably worry about how their children will do after they're gone. pnwmom Apr 2015 #115

Thank you, Ilsa Hekate Apr 2015 #71

Thank you for sharing your story laundry_queen Apr 2015 #73

Thank you for sharing this. Yes, with small children you can see them learning and growing every day pnwmom Apr 2015 #86

"a normal child" d_r Apr 2015 #101

That's your comment here? laundry_queen Apr 2015 #102

yeah it is d_r Apr 2015 #106

Where in that post did s/he describe a child with a disability with a derogatory term? pnwmom Apr 2015 #111

I'll have to let my cousin know she's being derogatory laundry_queen Apr 2015 #158

These children aren't "normal". Ilsa Apr 2015 #104

language has power d_r Apr 2015 #105

Typical and normal mean the same thing, professional jargon aside, since normal means pnwmom Apr 2015 #112

Great d_r Apr 2015 #114

Unlike Down Syndrome, being gay is not a disability. It's kind of shocking you would put them pnwmom Apr 2015 #117

so your bias d_r Apr 2015 #122

I think it's very strange that anyone who is pro-choice -- pnwmom Apr 2015 #123

so now d_r Apr 2015 #126

Okay, you're a right-to-lifer. That puts everything into context. Thanks. n/t pnwmom Apr 2015 #136

Seriously. d_r Apr 2015 #141

Another poster, not me, referred to children with Downs Syndrome and then to "normal children." pnwmom Apr 2015 #143

Thank you... Ilsa Apr 2015 #147

Ilsa used the term "normal" pnw was trying to explain the term.Why accuse her of something she didnt uppityperson Apr 2015 #145

she is the one that explained it d_r Apr 2015 #149

I said no such thing. I said the opposite. I said it wasn't meant in a derogatory way. pnwmom Apr 2015 #153

Makes ya wonder, doesn't it, pnwmom? nt hifiguy Apr 2015 #130

you're talking shades of language my child Ilsa Apr 2015 #128

It matters to him quite a bit d_r Apr 2015 #142

He's only less human in your eyes. Ilsa Apr 2015 #144

the term that was used d_r Apr 2015 #150

Your conclusions are wrong. "Not normal" are the same words that mother's doctor pnwmom Apr 2015 #155

Your diatribe is as offensive as the woman's who told me Ilsa Apr 2015 #157

Wow. The level of arrogance is mind-boggling. pnwmom Apr 2015 #154

I can identify with her having to constantly supervise... Ilsa Apr 2015 #103

And the more ability those children have, the more you might have to watch them suffer pnwmom Apr 2015 #113

the Dominican Sisters might be willing to come to your house and "babysit" for some length of time, KittyWampus Apr 2015 #148

Powerful post. madfloridian Apr 2015 #91

Agreed. Butterbean Apr 2015 #134

The same test should detect other trisomies. jeff47 Apr 2015 #20

This test also detects 13 and 18, which are the only other viable trisomies. Barack_America Apr 2015 #31

Both of those have live expectancy of a year, with about 10% living to their teens (nt) jeff47 Apr 2015 #35

People with Down's aren't here to teach us anything. They're here to live their lives. REP Apr 2015 #26

More sickening than scientifically engineering them out of existence? BainsBane Apr 2015 #38

Not every parent will get this test, it isn't mandated. uppityperson Apr 2015 #46

Exactly. n/t pnwmom Apr 2015 #53

This isn't genetic engineering. This is identifying a serious disability in fetuses that are already in existence pnwmom Apr 2015 #52

Yes. Feron Apr 2015 #146

I too have concerns about this...I've lived in Town of Jefferson, WI, where St Coletta's Home was HereSince1628 Apr 2015 #33

Not eugenics at all. Barack_America Apr 2015 #44

Thank you for your informed perspective. pnwmom Apr 2015 #50

Boy BainsBane Apr 2015 #69

I would welcome a test to screen for schizophrenia, and I think most people would. pnwmom Apr 2015 #72

Yes, why not test all of us out of existence BainsBane Apr 2015 #79

Hitler? Your hyperbole is getting tiresome. No one's forcing anything on you. pnwmom Apr 2015 #87

I have to wonder... Mariana Apr 2015 #109

Even if there were no babies born with Down's for a generation, still genetic problems will uppityperson Apr 2015 #76

I'm not saying I know what the solution is BainsBane Apr 2015 #81

The OP is not about testing for any imperceived imperfection. It is about testing for Down Syndrome, pnwmom Apr 2015 #85

Having worked with parents who have made the choice to abort and to bear, I am glad there are uppityperson Apr 2015 #121

Don't go confusing people with actual science. hifiguy Apr 2015 #125

I too am uneasy with this. If/when we have a test that can ID genetic markers for homosexuality, kelly1mm Apr 2015 #57

I do not understand that argument, to disallow a test that some will be happy to have available uppityperson Apr 2015 #59

If someone told you that they aborted just for the sole reason that they wanted a girl and the kelly1mm Apr 2015 #78

I do not understand that argument, to disallow a test that some will be happy to have available uppityperson Apr 2015 #120

Great! I will put you down as one who would not judge someone aborting their homosexual kelly1mm Apr 2015 #129

Strawman. You still did not address my point. uppityperson Apr 2015 #131

I did not address your point as I NEVER said anywhere in this thread that the tests for kelly1mm Apr 2015 #133

You said "I too am uneasy with this", a test for Down's syndrome. uppityperson Apr 2015 #135

I am uneasy with the concept of aborting a pregnanacy for certain reasons such as kelly1mm Apr 2015 #139

Thank you for taking time to clarify. uppityperson Apr 2015 #140

How can society shun if women's private medical decisions remain private? pnwmom Apr 2015 #62

They can't. I would hope that is someone I knew aborted a pregnancy because of gender or sexual kelly1mm Apr 2015 #80

Yet you can't outlaw terminating pregnancy for those reasons BainsBane Apr 2015 #67

"Any limitations would have to be at testing." You want to limit testing as a way to limit abortions. pnwmom Apr 2015 #74

I've written reams in this thread BainsBane Apr 2015 #83

Temper, temper! pnwmom Apr 2015 #84

Jury results, leave 2-5 Lancero Apr 2015 #89

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service Flying Squirrel Apr 2015 #90

Right, I agree I think. It is hard to know that in protecting all women's right to choose we kelly1mm Apr 2015 #82

I completely support YOUR choice to carry such a fetus to term, have the baby, and have the kid... Hekate Apr 2015 #70

This^^^^^^ haikugal Apr 2015 #92

Thank you for your clear-headed honesty. n/t pnwmom Apr 2015 #119

There are already at least two types of testing for DS later in pregnancy. pnwmom Apr 2015 #88

Wow. Talk about something that brings up lots of issues. leftyladyfrommo Apr 2015 #116

It's only eugenics if the women are encouraged to choose abortion KamaAina Apr 2015 #127

File this under "Things you don't see every day". lumberjack_jeff Apr 2015 #132

I agree with you. Jenoch Apr 2015 #152

As a parent I can tell you that it scares the hell out of me onecaliberal Apr 2015 #34

I'm sure it does. I have an old friend from college whose brother is severely mentally disabled. pnwmom Apr 2015 #36

Thank you. uppityperson Apr 2015 #40

Fine. The word refers to a developmental lag, pnwmom Apr 2015 #45

Thank you, I appreciate it. eom uppityperson Apr 2015 #48

He is my first born, wouldn't trade him for anything. onecaliberal Apr 2015 #42

I'm sorry if it bothered you pnwmom Apr 2015 #47

I was not offended because of the context you used it. onecaliberal Apr 2015 #49

My heart goes out to you.. haikugal Apr 2015 #94

No subject JustAnotherGen Apr 2015 #97

Just try to take it day by day and do what I can to onecaliberal Apr 2015 #108

For those who want to know and get tested, this would be a wonderful thing. uppityperson Apr 2015 #43

It is good. This can be done 3 weeks earlier than the standard... Barack_America Apr 2015 #51

Either you support a woman's right to choose, or you don't. The reason can't matter. LatinPride Apr 2015 #54

Right. It is impossible to police motive, without a complete violation of privacy. Welcome to DU! nt pnwmom Apr 2015 #64

I was pregnant with our son when I was 45 and we had amniocentesis tandot Apr 2015 #55

We also had amnio for our last pregnancy pnwmom Apr 2015 #56

Thanks for starting this thread, pnwmom Hekate Apr 2015 #77

After this becomes available, it becomes even more important to support choice KitSileya Apr 2015 #100

I haven't seen the availability of amniocentesis or CVB being used in that manner. pnwmom Apr 2015 #110

No excuses needed Feron Apr 2015 #151

mother of my first child-therapist at a sheltered workshop-tested the shit out of our son's fetus dembotoz Apr 2015 #107

My best friend works with developmentally disabled adults Freddie Apr 2015 #156

The intersection of ethics and science can be fascinating to observe and read. LanternWaste Apr 2015 #137

But very painful to live through. n/t pnwmom Apr 2015 #138