General Discussion

Hekate

(100,133 posts)

77. Thanks for starting this thread, pnwmom

Thu Apr 2, 2015, 12:54 AM

Apr 2015

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.

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