90% of Children with Down Syndrome are Aborted

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
My two favorite quotes from this thread thus far that are supposed to be talking about other folks that totally apply to a whole lot of Catholics and overly religious people in general

“Sociologically speaking, in a general sense, it doesn’t seem to be a particularly happy, joyful or comfortable demographic as a group. It would be an interesting study though, to analyze what that stems from.”

“As long as self obsessed human beings with different favorite colors are allowed to determine right and wrong this world will languish in it’s own corruption.” [/quote]

What the fuck does being Catholic have to do with anything? We aren’t discussing faith and religion here. I can’t speak my mind or speak for myself?
I think your letting sterotype and bigotry colour your view. [/quote]

“We aren’t discussing faith and religion here.” — You wanna read through the whole thread and rethink your statement here bud? I’ll give you a hint, I don’t even have to scroll back one page to debunk that statement. [/quote]

I wasn’t unless mentioned in passing. Either way it doesn’t make you less of a bigot.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:
My two favorite quotes from this thread thus far that are supposed to be talking about other folks that totally apply to a whole lot of Catholics and overly religious people in general

“Sociologically speaking, in a general sense, it doesn’t seem to be a particularly happy, joyful or comfortable demographic as a group. It would be an interesting study though, to analyze what that stems from.”

“As long as self obsessed human beings with different favorite colors are allowed to determine right and wrong this world will languish in it’s own corruption.” [/quote]

What the fuck does being Catholic have to do with anything? We aren’t discussing faith and religion here. I can’t speak my mind or speak for myself?
I think your letting sterotype and bigotry colour your view. [/quote]

“We aren’t discussing faith and religion here.” — You wanna read through the whole thread and rethink your statement here bud? I’ll give you a hint, I don’t even have to scroll back one page to debunk that statement. [/quote]

I wasn’t unless mentioned in passing. Either way it doesn’t make you less of a bigot.[/quote]

One quote was from you and one was from Tiribulus, he is quoting scripture so end of argument. Your “in passing” statement was "I know you think that my faith is the main driver of my perception of morality, and I’d be lying like hell if I said that was not true. But I have also done the deliberate exercise of putting the religious precept against a secualar environment. Like is this religious tenet a functional, efficient, methology in the absense of religion. And I can say that almost every case the answer is a resounding yes. So while going through a worship seems like a stupid way to spend your time, the tenets espoused are good and functional in a world absent of religion as it is in a world with religion.

That’s my take on it… "

More importantly how in the hell am I a bigot? If it’s for posting your bigoted quote about gays then well how can I argue with such astounding logic as that?

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s pretty tasteless to take this child (whoever did that, not the OP) and make him the medium of some political message. It’s exploitation. Pure and simple. [/quote]

They should have just killed him instead.

Religion is also just an opinion. Its your opinion of the best way to connect with a being you dont know really exists. That’s why its called having faith and believing in NOt Knowing and seeing

[quote]kleymanni wrote:
Religion is also just an opinion. Its your opinion of the best way to connect with a being you dont know really exists. That’s why its called having faith and believing in NOt Knowing and seeing[/quote]

Wrong thread…

[quote]Big Banana wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s pretty tasteless to take this child (whoever did that, not the OP) and make him the medium of some political message. It’s exploitation. Pure and simple. [/quote]

They should have just killed him instead.[/quote]

Wait, we either have to shamelessly exploit handicapped people or outright kill them?

Damn, thats harsh.

Who knew?

You need a sample of the child’s actual DNA to test for Down Syndrome. That involves piercing the placenta with a needle to gather the material and carries a lot of risks. It really isn’t done except for older first time mothers who have a much higher risk of having a child with Down Syndrome. Even then it isn’t a common practice.

Where is this stat from? Sounds like bullshit to me.

Really? You think this “sounds like bullshit to YOU.” Well, take your critique up with the NYT’s. Here is the line directly from the article you are so in disbelief of “About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion.” As for finding the article yourself, copy the thread title and use a search engine like google. Difficult I know gasp

Obviously a few clicks of a mouse is very important to your muskles. That explains why you are so biased in favor of killing defenseless children. The website is - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html

Edit- So age, is the determining factor for Down Syndrome? If this were the case, why even test for the syndrome? You may have joined the select table for true morons in these forums. Be proud of who sits next to you.

[quote]MaudDib wrote:
You need a sample of the child’s actual DNA to test for Down Syndrome. That involves piercing the placenta with a needle to gather the material and carries a lot of risks. It really isn’t done except for older first time mothers who have a much higher risk of having a child with Down Syndrome. Even then it isn’t a common practice.

Where is this stat from? Sounds like bullshit to me. [/quote]

lol, chill out bro, I don’t think I mentioned my own views on abortion at all now did I?

“Until this year, only pregnant women 35 and older were routinely tested to see if their fetuses had the extra chromosome that causes Down syndrome. As a result many couples were given the diagnosis only at birth. But under a new recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, doctors have begun to offer a new, safer screening procedure to all pregnant women, regardless of age.”

From your article.

That sign is misleading. It makes it seem like 90% of the fetuses that have been conceived which had DS have been aborted since Roe V. Wade, however your source clearly points out that that 90% is of the percentage of pregnancies tested, which is far from all pregnancies.

Age of the mother is a factor in Downs Syndrome, that’s just a medical fact.

Personally I think those sorts of decisions should be up to the mother and father of the child.

Don’t worry BRO, your post was drenching and riddled with your stance. I had posted the article because it proves how horrendous abortion is and the atrocities that are done in the name of ‘purifying the human race.’ To prove me wrong, please tell me your stance on abortion. And btw I read the article, before I posted. But thanks for the vote of confidence.

Until you have the nurses at a pregnancy clinic tell your wife and mother of your child that “We should receive genetic counseling because our child has a twenty five percent chance of having multiple sclerosis. My wife should talk me into receiving the counseling because we need it!” Like I would treat my child any different, one way or another, that simple fact infuriates me. Now granted that is hearsay, but the message was the same to me. The nurse wanted to find a reason to potentially abort a healthy fetus, because my child has a seventy five percent chance in being perfect! If the woman would have had the courage to voice her concern to me, she would have gone home without a job. I promise you that would be the least of her concerns.

Go back to medical school with your fucked up medicals facts. Dumb shit like your claim proves how wrong you are. Age is thought to potentially be a cause of DS, by no means a guarantee and conclusive characteristics of the disease. Gender has proven to be a cause of MS, but not much else.

Please try and tell me you know how the genetics of every unborn child will turn out and history proves how well genetic therapy worked out for any given country. I offer the entire world’s history as evidence. Prove me wrong, please. Take that as my challenge to you BRO.

[quote]MaudDib wrote:
lol, chill out bro, I don’t think I mentioned my own views on abortion at all now did I?

“Until this year, only pregnant women 35 and older were routinely tested to see if their fetuses had the extra chromosome that causes Down syndrome. As a result many couples were given the diagnosis only at birth. But under a new recommendation from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, doctors have begun to offer a new, safer screening procedure to all pregnant women, regardless of age.”

From your article.

That sign is misleading. It makes it seem like 90% of the fetuses that have been conceived which had DS have been aborted since Roe V. Wade, however your source clearly points out that that 90% is of the percentage of pregnancies tested, which is far from all pregnancies.

Age of the mother is a factor in Downs Syndrome, that’s just a medical fact.

Personally I think those sorts of decisions should be up to the mother and father of the child. [/quote]

[quote]niksamaras wrote:

[quote]jre67t wrote:
niksamaras sounds to me that you need alot of growing up to do. Your willing to have sex but not man up to your responsibilities reeks of a coward. Your the one bitching about you being too good for your soccer team as goalie?
What if your child was born and you found out afterwards would you kill him or her? By Rhonyn and ur logic anyone useless to society should be sent to the gas chambers correct? Who gets to decide that ever thought about that. You sorry bastards.
And like Pat said please do not try to walk the high moral road especially when you just stated that you are willing to kill a baby just because you do not have patience. [/quote]

If I found that later, which I really doubt but in any case, I would do my best for ti to be raised correctly. But, if I can avoid a pretty nasty situation, why shouldn’t I? And if my wife would like to keep it, fine, her problem. I am just that “immature”, to take responsibilities of my actions. Keeping the baby is her action, I ain’t got to do shit. Still I will send money and stuff, but I am not in for babysitting…And no, people with special need are not useless. Many of them can do repetitive things, that computers cannot. Things, taht could drive a normal person crazy.[/quote]

Mother fucker, do you not think you’d have to babysit a normal child? Kids are work, special needs or not. Don’t have kids at all then.

This thread makes me sick and until you have experienced living with someone with special needs you should not make judgegment on their right to live and self worth.

Having a sister with special needs, not down syndrome but she doesn’t possess the same cognitive ability of us individuals deemed “normal,” has broadened my perspective on what constitutes a “valuable” human life.

Although frusturating at times, annoying, self centered and flat out unintelligent my sister can be, I love her with all my heart and would sacrafice my life to save hers if such an event ever comes to play.

She’s funny, caring in her own way, gives everyone a thousand hugs and kisses everday, and brings joy to many people.

All she wants to do is fit in, fit in with the kids at school, fit in at family gatherings with the adults, and it is hard for her because her biggest challenge is not understanding others silent opinions (when to speak, when someone doesn’t want to be bothered), but it makes her persistent.

She is in a BOCES program studying animal care and with that being said has been in regional compitions on proper dog grooming, training etc. She’ll have a job soon enough.

Before I begin giving a life story here, I just find it appalling that people are so ready to throw in the towel and give up on others. That because someone is dealt different cards than someone else that their life is not valuable and ultimately expendable, because I know real life scenarios where this is absolutely not the case. It’s time for people to learn some responsibilty and to remove themselves from their so very high horses. If we all were, as individuals, inherently selfish and acted upon our selfish desires the survival or our species would long be gone show some empathy, maybe it’d feel good.

That is a rather meaty and heart tugging post dude. This has nothing to do with anything and don’t ask me exactly why, but I remember when you first showed up at this site.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That is a rather meaty and heart tugging post dude. This has nothing to do with anything and don’t ask me exactly why, but I remember when you first showed up at this site.[/quote]

Meaty, heart tugging, and excellent. Thank you very much, a_b, for bringing a much much needed dose of reality and actual experience to this thread.

Lest we forget that we are discussing eugenics and the murder of “less-equal” actual human beings here.

Thank you.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Don’t worry BRO, your post was drenching and riddled with your stance. I had posted the article because it proves how horrendous abortion is and the atrocities that are done in the name of ‘purifying the human race.’ To prove me wrong, please tell me your stance on abortion. And btw I read the article, before I posted. But thanks for the vote of confidence. [/quote]

  1. Strawman. Genetic testing for older mothers =/= eugenics. A woman has every right to be informed on the status of her own pregnancy.

I don’t know what your particular experience was, so I can’t speak to that, but genetic counseling does not exist solely as a means of “finding reasons to abort pregnancies.” People who know that their child may be at an increased risk for developing certain disorders might seek counseling before conception to help them with deciding whether to have a child or adopt. Also, knowing if your child has a higher risk for developing certain conditions will allow a parent to keep a close eye out for symptoms. For things like MS early intervention means a much better prognosis.

Hook EB, Cross PK, Schreinemachers DM. Chromosomal abnormality rates at amniocentesis and in live-born infants. JAMA 1983;249(15):2034-38.

Down syndrome births in the United States from 1989 to 2001. Egan JF - Am J Obstet Gynecol - 01-SEP-2004; 191(3): 1044-8.

Maternal Age Related Risks
Mom’s Age Risk for trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) Risk for all triomies
20 1 in 1,667 1 in 526
21 1 in 1,429 1 in 526
22 1 in 1,429 1 in 500
23 1 in 1,429 1 in 500
24 1 in 1,250 1 in 476
25 1 in 1,250 1 in 476
26 1 in 1,176 1 in 476
27 1 in 1,111 1 in 455
28 1 in 1,053 1 in 435
29 1 in 1,000 1 in 417
30 1 in 952 1 in 384
31 1 in 909 1 in 384
32 1 in 769 1 in 323
33 1 in 625 1 in 286
34 1 in 500 1 in 238
35 1 in 385 1 in 192
36 1 in 294 1 in 156
37 1 in 227 1 in 127
38 1 in 175 1 in 102
39 1 in 137 1 in 83
40 1 in 106 1 in 66
41 1 in 82 1 in 53
42 1 in 64 1 in 42
43 1 in 50 1 in 33
44 1 in 38 1 in 26
45 1 in 30 1 in 21
46 1 in 23 1 in 16
47 1 in 18 1 in 13
48 1 in 14 1 in 10
49 1 in 11 1 in 8

Not that I exactly have a PhD in statistics but I think that data suggests a pretty high confidence level for a mother’s age predicting the incidence of trisomies. I never said age of the mother causes DS in 100% of pregnancies, but when the likelihood increases exponentially, testing is a good idea. It’s a good idea even if you wouldn’t choose to abort the pregnancy because

a. it allows you to begin planning sooner for the financial and medical/care ramifications of raising a special needs child

b. age of the mother is associated with increased incidence of other trisomies which do not produce viable offspring. In cases where the child has no chance of living it’d be in the interests of the mother’s health not to continue the pregnancy needlessly, especially when considering the high rates of miscarriage which can be life threatening in some cases.

Great story austin_bicep. Thank you for sharing and I hope nothing but the best for you, your family and sister!

Wow, BRO you are a bona fide idiot! Please tell me what eugenics are if they are NOT the “applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population.” This was taken from “Eugenics”, Unified Medical Language System (Psychological Index Terms) National Library of Medicine, 26 Sep. 2010. When you test a fetus to meet a certain criteria and provide the option provided is to kill the fetus that is eugenics. Abortion kills a child because genetically the child does not meet certain criteria.

[quote]MaudDib wrote:

  1. Strawman. Genetic testing for older mothers =/= eugenics. A woman has every right to be informed on the status of her own pregnancy. [/quote]

What is the purpose of genetic counseling? I will treat my child the exact same, no matter her characteristics. How hard is that to understand? So you will treat your child differently how? FYI the counseling was offered after the conception. My wife and I never went to a single appointment.

Before conception is a different animal altogether. I agree with this one hundred percent, IF a couple chooses to, of their own free will. Do not try and tell me that after a certain age they have to have counseling.

You admit you are not a PhD and therefore you are reaching. I am by no means saying age is not tied to DS, however if you do not want to raise a child with DS then donâ??t fuck after a certain point, or at least time your activities to the natural signs and methods of family planning. Fresh concept, I know gasp

[quote] Hook EB, Cross PK, Schreinemachers DM. Chromosomal abnormality rates at amniocentesis and in live-born infants. JAMA 1983;249(15):2034-38.

Down syndrome births in the United States from 1989 to 2001. Egan JF - Am J Obstet Gynecol - 01-SEP-2004; 191(3): 1044-8.

Maternal Age Related Risks
Mom’s Age Risk for trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) Risk for all triomies
20 1 in 1,667 1 in 526
. . . . a bunch of numbers . . . .
49 1 in 11 1 in 8

Not that I exactly have a PhD in statistics but I think that data suggests a pretty high confidence level for a mother’s age predicting the incidence of trisomies. I never said age of the mother causes DS in 100% of pregnancies, but when the likelihood increases exponentially, testing is a good idea. It’s a good idea even if you wouldn’t choose to abort the pregnancy because

a. it allows you to begin planning sooner for the financial and medical/care ramifications of raising a special needs child [/quote]

So what option is available here, if not abortion?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That is a rather meaty and heart tugging post dude. This has nothing to do with anything and don’t ask me exactly why, but I remember when you first showed up at this site.[/quote]

Lol, well I do remember our first interaction on this website years ago.