Cure for Down Syndrome...ban it!

KarissaMann05 said:
Okay, this part of your post that I agreed. I would be sad if scientists discover a new way to defect a child's deafness during pregnancy. I can say the same thing for other similar disabilities or medical conditions. I know medical technology gets advanced and fast, tho...

Yeah, I can do that. The last time I recall it was something a few hundreds failures, but am not sure. I know someone is working as a legislator, but it gets late night here. I'll try to remember to ask her... lol
Click to expand...

Genetic Testing and Deafness
Now that some of the genes responsible for congenital deafness have been found it is very possible to develop tests to be able to screen parents to see if they are likely to have a child affected in this way. Developing such a test may be technically straightforward but it is ethically quite complicated. Deafness as a disability does not stop a child or adult leading a full, active, productive and enjoyable life and many people question whether it is right to develop tests that might lead some parents to abort foetuses who may be born deaf.

Others argue that parents have the right to choose and some people would not want to have a deaf child. It is a difficult problem to argue that people should be forced to have a child that they do not want, or to prevent the research that develops a test to show whether parents are carriers of one of the genes for deafness.
Click to expand...
Genetic Testing and Deafness

If there is a way to do genetic testing to determine the risk of having a child born with retardation I'm sure parents would not hesitate to find out.
 
Foxrac said:
5% is very tiny to me - no difference from other tests that may have 1% to 5% error.

Well, that's mother's choice and it is financially expensive to take care of child with DS, also save taxpayers for not put them on welfare (government benefits for rest of life).

For deaf people, they do have mentally capable to live and work independently but poor education and lack of support may cause them to trapped into government's hand (welfare).
Click to expand...

5% is tiny to you??? Would you go to a Dr that accidentally killed 5% of his patients? Would you take a pill that kills 1/20 people who take it? Because that is what is happening....theoretically anyway.... 5% of these babies are dying unnecessarily. 5% is statistically huge.
 
TXgolfer said:
5% is tiny to you??? Would you go to a Dr that accidentally killed 5% of his patients? Would you take a pill that kills 1/20 people who take it? Because that is what is happening....theoretically anyway.... 5% of these babies are dying unnecessarily. 5% is statistically huge.
Click to expand...

Yes Txgolfer, indeed, which is why they use 'percentage' because 5 looks much smaller than 100, if it was in ratio like you described, its looks quite big...1 in every 20 is at risk of death by misdiagnosis...is surely serious.

Foxrac, your math is 'not bad' by your knowledge of maths is lacking flexibility which is bad...i mean you need be more savvy, learn to recognise the difference between ratios and percentages and fractions, it is APPEARANCE that is used to fool you.

Maths is used to indoctrinate people as much as English is used...English language have a way of fooling you with 'perception brought on by the 'tone' or 'implication' or even 'deception' , a deception by omitting is it not...sadly people aren't too bright...the Public relations lots, those people are a right bastard at that, no doubt.
 
KarissaMann05 said:
Well, it's a bit of ticky because, sometimes, they thought their child is disabled but it turns out that the baby don't have Down's. The test is not always 100% correct, tho.
Click to expand...

yeah it did happen to my best friend, who is told that high possible that her baby have DS. Guess what her daughter is a heatlhy and honor student in school. :shock: Thank god my best friend refused to abort it and plan to keep baby.
 
I find some attitudes about DS people to be disturbing.

Prenatal positive test results for a DS baby? Just get rid of it. Abort it. Have a "perfect" baby later.

How about expanding that to prenatal testing for deafness? Positive results? Abort the deaf baby. After all, they require more time, effort and expense to raise. You can always have a "perfect" baby later.

Chilling and disappointing.
 
Grummer said:
Yes Txgolfer, indeed, which is why they use 'percentage' because 5 looks much smaller than 100, if it was in ratio like you described, its looks quite big...1 in every 20 is at risk of death by misdiagnosis...is surely serious.

Foxrac, your math is 'not bad' by your knowledge of maths is lacking flexibility which is bad...i mean you need be more savvy, learn to recognise the difference between ratios and percentages and fractions, it is APPEARANCE that is used to fool you.

Maths is used to indoctrinate people as much as English is used...English language have a way of fooling you with 'perception brought on by the 'tone' or 'implication' or even 'deception' , a deception by omitting is it not...sadly people aren't too bright...the Public relations lots, those people are a right bastard at that, no doubt.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree with him, 5% is not big number to me and it already convince women to make decision to abort their baby - because of test result.
 
Reba said:
I find some attitudes about DS people to be disturbing.

Prenatal positive test results for a DS baby? Just get rid of it. Abort it. Have a "perfect" baby later.

How about expanding that to prenatal testing for deafness? Positive results? Abort the deaf baby. After all, they require more time, effort and expense to raise. You can always have a "perfect" baby later.

Chilling and disappointing.
Click to expand...

Deafness? If they invent the testing to detect the deafness so they will unlikely to know until after 20 weeks. It is too late for abortion in some states, but they include exception for severe medical condition, such as DS so enable for women to have abortion after 20 weeks.

For states with little abortion restriction, abort deaf baby is sad but it is mother's choice, IMO.
 
There is good information about prenatal testing for DS.
Prenatal Testing for Down Syndrome

Edited: 9 in 10 baby with DS aborted is too high.
A study from researchers at Wayne State University in Michigan examined the cases of 145 pregnancies with a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome from 1988-97. The study found that 19 (13.1 percent) women chose continuation of the pregnancy, while 126 (86.9 percent) chose termination. Another study examined 131 prenatally diagnosed cases of Down syndrome in Hawaii from 1987-96. The study found that women in 110 of those cases (84 percent) chose to have their pregnancies terminated. A study in San Francisco published in 2006 found an overall rate of 81 percent.
Click to expand...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...antorum-says-90-percent-down-syndrome-childr/

80% to 90% baby with DS aborted.
 
Foxrac said:
Well, I disagree with him, 5% is not big number to me and it already convince women to make decision to abort their baby - because of test result.
Click to expand...
It's not a big number to you because you don't care about other people's problems. If it were 5% of your family, maybe it would be a "big number" to you.

You see, the value of people is not measured in percentages or quantities. People are individuals, not numbers.
 
Foxrac said:
Deafness? If they invent the testing to detect the deafness so they will unlikely to know until after 20 weeks. It is too late for abortion in some states, but they include exception for severe medical condition, such as DS so enable for women to have abortion after 20 weeks.

For states with little abortion restriction, abort deaf baby is sad but it is mother's choice, IMO.
Click to expand...
The philosophic point is the same. Maybe the science of detection hasn't yet caught up but when it does, look out.

Suppose someday there is an early prenatal (first trimester) test for deafness or for homosexual tendencies? Parents could legally abort those children because they would not fit their concept of perfection. Genetic deafness and homosexuality could be eliminated within a generation. Would that be OK with you?
 
Reba said:
It's not a big number to you because you don't care about other people's problems. If it were 5% of your family, maybe it would be a "big number" to you.

You see, the value of people is not measured in percentages or quantities. People are individuals, not numbers.
Click to expand...

In bold - not really, it is not big number to me if run in my family. :dunno:
 
Frisky Feline said:
yeah it did happen to my best friend, who is told that high possible that her baby have DS. Guess what her daughter is a heatlhy and honor student in school. :shock: Thank god my best friend refused to abort it and plan to keep baby.
Click to expand...

You should be thankful that they find a way to treat those disabled people!

Also, I recall a few stories about aborting 'wrong' twin child and lost both of twins. Which is more heartbreaking...

I applause those scientists' best efforts to resolve that issue.
 
Reba said:
The philosophic point is the same. Maybe the science of detection hasn't yet caught up but when it does, look out.

Suppose someday there is an early prenatal (first trimester) test for deafness or for homosexual tendencies? Parents could legally abort those children because they would not fit their concept of perfection. Genetic deafness and homosexuality could be eliminated within a generation. Would that be OK with you?
Click to expand...

It don't change mother's decision to abort their baby after they realize that baby has DS.

It will be sad to me but I'm not interested to interfere with mother's choice. I'm glad that prenatal test for deafness and homosexuality aren't exist today.

Ban on abortion will not work because mothers will go to elsewhere to get abortion legally like go to Canada. I could give an advice (to cope with deaf baby) to them but it is their choice.

Even, I'm wonder about religious families - if mother finds their baby is homosexual and they against on abortion, but choose to abortion so make them looks hypocritical.
 
Foxrac said:
It don't change mother's decision to abort their baby after they realize that baby has DS.

It will be sad to me but I'm not interested to interfere with mother's choice. I'm glad that prenatal test for deafness and homosexuality aren't exist today.

Ban on abortion will not work because mothers will go to elsewhere to get abortion legally like go to Canada. I could give an advice (to cope with deaf baby) to them but it is their choice.

Even, I'm wonder about religious families - if mother finds their baby is homosexual and they against on abortion, but choose to abortion so make them looks hypocritical.
Click to expand...
You are avoiding the question.

If a prenatal test could determine if a baby would be born deaf or homosexual, and the mothers decided to abort those babies, would your philosophy be the same? Would you support that?

I never said anything about a ban on abortion.
 
Reba said:
You are colder than I thought. :cold:
Click to expand...

I think he meant by his family has a lower chance of disability risk, which probably don't concern him. But, I pray there is nothing happen to his family and him! :fingersx:
 
Reba said:
You are colder than I thought. :cold:
Click to expand...

I don't understand about how sensitive are you and I think you are misunderstood my post.

I'm saying that 5% is not high number, regardless if it is from my families or anyone, also it is my opinion.

I never encourage any women to have abortion if they find their baby may have disability, including DS. It is completely in doctor and mother's hand.
 
Back
Top