Is it just me or is this profoundly disturbing?

Post Reply New Topic

One issue that I'm uncomfortable with (and I got a bit lost in reading over this thread, so I apologize if it's been brought up before) Statistics say that the incidence of Downs syndrome is reduced, in part due to the prenatal test. Does this mean that more people are choosing abortion if the test is positive? In that case, arguments about abortion aside, the incidence may well be unchanged or be increasing, and the need for understanding of how Downs works is just the same as it was before the test, but it's less likely to get attention now. I can see where this would be an issue with any prenatal test of this nature.

You don't deal with something by sweeping it under the rug.

If the incidence of Down's is indeed reduced, then I would say it's likely related to increased abortions after a positive Down's test. The probability of having a baby with Down's is much higher for moms of advanced maternal age (possibly dads too - not sure of the data on them) and women are having babies much later in life these days than ever before. Of course it's also possible that the reduction in Down's is a natural occurance, or due to different reasons, but it appears that a correlation with abortion is likely.

Right. I guess, to be more clear - the incidence of Down's isn't being accurately reported if the measure they are using is the number of babies born with Downs. I'd agree, with the increase in older mothers, this statistic seems suspicious.

According to a 2007 NY Times article:

"About 90 percent of pregnant women who are given a Down syndrome diagnosis have chosen to have an abortion. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html

Not to drag us into an abortion debate, but as the originator of the thread I just want to make it clear that abortion does not bother me as a medical procedure, because it is inherently tied to the right of women to control what happens in their own bodies, rather than the State. However, the societal preference for what is essentially a eugenics-based approach to eliminating challenging diversities, troubles me greatly.

I am not a fan of prenatal testing because I believe that people who choose to have a baby, should be choosing to have whatever baby they make together - not some ideal image of the baby of their dreams. The more prenatal testing we do, the more we support this concept of having the perfect child. It does not move us forward.

according to studies, about 92% of pregnancies with a down's diagnosis are aborted. i would assume that is skewing the number of down's births.

i think prenatal down's testing is quite a bit different than any prenatal testing that could be done for autism. with down's, there is a high risk of congenital heart defect and babies must be examined for that right after birth. it can be beneficial to know if your baby will need that level of care before you give birth, so you are ready to provide it. there are other serious health concerns that a down's baby can have, including up to a 20% of a certain cancer, that may necessitate immediate treatment after birth. autism simply does not carry those same birth risks, so there is little benefit to in-utero screening.

that doesnt mean no one will provide or take in-utero screening for autism with the plan to abort if the screen was positive. but i think the ethical considerations of providing in-utero screening for autism are quite a bit different than those for down's. there are some similarities in the ethics, but some very basic differences as well.

I suspect significantly more people would abort an autistic fetus than a downs one at this point in time, and given downs is already over 90%, I think we are moving to a society where there will no longer be any people with downs syndrome, nor any people with autism (should they find a prenatal test for it). Unless we seriously reconsider this slippery slope.

It reminds me very much of that quote from WW2... "First they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist, then they came for the homosexuals, and I did not speak up because I was not homosexual, then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me, but there was no one left to speak up."

Where do you draw the line between a child who is worthy of being born and a child who is not? A child who will be too great a burden and a child who will not? At what point do we stop sliding - or do we never stop sliding and hit the bottom in a world where diversity is the enemy, meant to be eradicated in the womb.

It's a difficult debate for certain.

As a woman who was pregnant twice past the age of 35 and who had to repeatedly defend the choice not to take the amnio test, I have no doubt at all that the reduction in Downs Syndrome is due to the existence of the prenatal test and the choice to terminate when Downs shows up in it. The testing for Downs and the decision to terminate is 90% of the entire conversation as to why an amnio is recommended. I had to say repeatedly to doctors and friends that I was fully aware I could give birth to a Downs child, and that I was willing to raise that child should it be the case, and I was not going to run around blaming the doctors for failing to warn me. No one could provide me for any other convincing argument in support of the prenatal testing that did not involve finding a genetic defect and choosing to terminate. There was not any condition the test looked for that would be correctable in utero; those would be found via ultrasound. It may have all changed; my youngest is now 10; but based on conversations I have with people I don't get the impression it has.

I will not say that fears of a genetic test are unfounded. I will only repeat that they are based on A leading to B and B leading to C, which is a process that does not have to happen with proper education and ethical process. Unlike Downs, ASD's are expected to involve a profusion of genes, and a parent could just as likely be deciding to abort Einstein. Understanding the genetic components with ASD's carries benefits as well as risks; particularly since it may not be as simple as one marked gene. It is a slippery slope, and that does need to be recognized.

If society cannot look after Autistics, then the condition should be halted and a cure put into place. That way, a lot of money will be saved and a lot of stress avoided, not to mention the lives of the Autistics who might be miserable with their existance.

I would be happy with parents having the option of getting tests for pretty much anything. If there were a test for hair color, I'd be favor of letting parents who would neglect or mistreat a blond child have the option to try for a redhead instead. The fewer resented or neglected children there are, and the more well loved children there are, the better off we are, as far as I'm concerned.

And while it's a bit of a tangent, I think letting Autism Speaks spend their money and effort on developing a genetic test is going to be much less harmful than having them try to force faulty and unwanted "cures" on perfectly happy, healthy children. Not that I think autism is genetic, mind.


I don't believe the effect would be to eliminate any diversities.

The fact is, most people who become parents ideally want children who are like themselves. Since the parents are diverse, the children will also be diverse. Neurotypical parents might generaly prefer neurotypical children, but aspie parents like myself are going to generally prefer aspie children.

There's only a risk of eliminating diversity if we start making decisions based on "majority rules" type societal judgements, rather than on the judgements of the individual parents. The solution to that is not to prevent the tests from being available, but to make sure the parents' and prospective parents' wishes are respected when it comes to their children.


I used to feel that way - that people who would only want a boy and not a girl, say, are probably better off not being parents in the first place. However, it's also true that there are a tremendous number of people who become parents despite being very poorly equipped for it. If no one had children who wasn't fullly prepared for the responsibilities, there wouldn't be many children around.

In addition - well, every now and then I get these wistful comments and looks from women who have only sons, when they look at our daughter. It's clear that they love their sons, but a daughter would have been such a delight to them - and I'm sure that for other parents, it's a son, or a redhead, or whatever, that would have really delighted them. Child rearing is tough enough - would it be so terrible to give parents a little more control, and perhaps allow them a little extra joy out of parenthood?

Besides, if one thinks parents should be willing to take whatever they get, how far does that go? If a fetus has anencephaly - lack of the top half of the head, including lack of any part of the brain above the brain stem - should the mother be forced to have the child and the parents be forced to support it? I just don't think it's a good idea forcing kids on parents who won't want them.

It has a very destructive effect on society, which has already been demonstrated in cultures which practice sex selection via abortion.

But even aside from that -- and it's a pretty serious concern -- I think your basic premise is flawed. Honestly, I think parents who are so stuck on one idea that they would actually abort a child that was the "wrong" sex or had the wrong haircolor are not going to be happy with whatever child they get. They will always be disappointed in some way.

Or were you being hyperbolic to make a point?

Or worse yet, simply neglected to death

http://www.economist.com/node/15606229

Exactly. God/nature/(whatever one believes in) loves to teach parents just how little they can control life by giving their children some trait that comes out of left field to the parent. When you allow parents pre-selection at the start, you are only encouraging the incorrect attitude that a parent actually has substantial choice as to what that child will be like. But, really, parents may guide and direct, but they don't control, and the faster they let go of that notion, the happier both they and the children will be.

I'll look wistfully at the children of other parents who sing beautifully. Or have perfect social grace. There are many things I would have loved my children to be, and most of those things can't be decided by a genetic test. Instead, I've been asked to love and appreciate the child I've actually got - and I do; I would never consider trading the whole of who they are for the "missed" traits. No matter how many ways potential parents try to control it, they will always end up having to face the reality that we don't get to choose our children.