It is politically incorrect to admit this, but kids with Down don’t “just learn at a slower pace” as advocates love to declare. There are many things that they don’t possess the ability to accomplish, ever, no matter how aggressive we are in treatments, therapies and special education. Does that mean we should automatically abort them all? Heck no. But it should be up to the individual parents if they want to bring such a child into their family. Not everyone is emotionally or financially equipped to spend the rest of their lives meeting the demands of a special-needs child. I shudder to think of the negative repercussions of relinquishing a Down baby for adoption.

It is also politically incorrect to ask we can find all of these “Down syndrome success stories” advocates are frequently claim. Where are the adults with Down living and working, really? Do you take your dog to the vet with Down? Does the homeowner next door to you have Down? How about your manager at work? Your bank teller? Your realtor? Your child’s teacher? Your apartment complex manager? Your auto mechanic?

That doesn’t mean that people with Down can’t or don’t work. What it does mean is that the even the “high functioning” ones are likely to end up being exploited for low-wage labor at Wal-mart or McDonalds, at a wage that will surely keep them in poverty or dependent on family or welfare. Sure, plenty of chromosomally normal people work at those places too, but at least they possess within themselves the potential to attain more, should they desire it.

I understand the author’s frustration with people jumping to the conclusion that she is either a victim of circumstance or a pro-life zealot. However, she is just as guilty of jumping to conclusions about how people view her daughter, and about people’s motivations with prenatal testing. Most people who terminate following a Down syndrome diagnosis did not want “a perfect baby.” They wanted a healthy baby who would at least be born with the potential to grow up to be an independent adult. Furthermore, there are many, many excruciating or deadly fetal defects that prenatal testing can reveal. It is the blissfully ignorant person indeed who thinks Down is the worst that can happen in a pregnancy.

The author also struck me as a little dishonest in a couple of areas. She neatly sidestepped the question of whether she did in fact have prenatal testing. Those who know ahead and continue are usually quick to point out that fact (think Choosing Naia, or Expecting Adam – two books written by “pro-choice” people who continued their pregnancies following a Down diagnosis.) Chances are she did not know ahead that Margaret had Down. If she indeed is someone who never actually faced that choice, how dare she criticize those that have?

The article features a photo of her daughter in cap and gown, graduating from high school. But there is no mention of the fact that The Riverside School is a boarding school for people with disabilities. The author seems content to let us wrongly conclude that her daughter graduated from a regular high school thereby “proving” that Down syndrome is really no big deal.

It is a big deal.

ignoring, for a moment, the fact that this country was built on a “money-driven value system,” let’s address the real problem: poor doctor-patient communication. the doctor in your hypo was working under the assumption that the woman would want to abort a downs fetus. if the doctor and patient had discussed her beliefs/values/plans/what have you prior to engaging in any prenatal testing, it is unlikely the issue would’ve come up.

and it’s not just the doctors who need to be better trained to communicate. women have a responsibility in deciding the course of their medical care as well. if a woman is uncommunicative of her beliefs and expectations, there is little for a doctor to go on. the doctor, then, is caught between a rock and a hard place — does s/he bring up further tests, and risk offending the woman, or does s/he keep quiet about a potential fetal condition and risk being sued if the woman delivers a less-than-perfect baby? there’s a reason why OB-GYNs are leaving the field in droves and few young doctors are choosing it.

if the studies cited by the wsj are to be believed, women are overwhelmingly choosing to abort abnormal fetuses. is this the fault of the doctors? there may well be some who believe that is the appropriate course of action. or is it, perhaps, that the vast majority of american women want to exercise control over their reproductive lives? IMO, it is more likely the latter. and personally, i believe that is a good thing.

How would you better train doctors? To go against their money-driven value systems?

I think the communication in these situations is pretty clear. The doctor is implying the mother should abort her child.

3) If there were a prenatal test for potential obesity, I have no doubt – none whatsoever – that the large majority of expectant mothers in the U.S. would take the

perci — from a pro-choice point of view, women have the right to choose. full stop. i do not question why a woman makes a particular choice, nor do i believe it is relevant to the debate. abortion is justified and unremarkable when a woman makes an informed choice.

I think her first sentence is her main premise, really. It’s not about whether people should have the choice to abort, but whether people should abort fetuses diagnosed with disabilities. This is an argument against the Pro-Choice 80-90% who aborted their fetuses diagnosed with Down’s.

I believe her choice was clear in “the test” paragraph. No test? Oh poor thing, you didn’t know. Test? Oh, so you chose this pain because of your conservative, right-wing politics. Both were wrong assumptions, she said. She either did not know, and did not regret having the baby; or she did know, and chose to still have the baby. She goes on giving first-hand experience on how her choice was the right choice — not for everyone, but for her.

big picture: the choice here is much, much bigger than just a mother’s right over her womb. this choice is the choice of eugenics: tailoring life. political ramifications, given say, mandatory or readily available screening: pro-choice is pro eugenics.

If you believe the personal is the political, it’s there already.

When I was pregnant, I met a pregnant woman whose ob-gyn instructed her to come into the office the day after her AFP test showed a high risk for Down syndrome. He wanted an amnio done, because they only had a few days to terminate, if the results indicated the baby had Down syndrome. She was not asked her what her “choice” was. She refused.

If you think this was an isolated incident, you’re naive.

I appreciate your points, but they don’t resonate with me. My experience does not exactly parallel Patricia’s, but it’s close enough to connect with the truth of her words.

You and I differ on this issue because we start with different presuppositions. You probably realize that. I am coming from the framework of the writer of Psalm 139(esp. verses 13-16) of the Old Testament.

However, I think one of the points of her story is that the value of the life of a down syndrome child (1) is worth almost as much or as much to that child as a regular child’s life is worth to that child, and (2) that life is not worth less to other people (family members mostly) except in foresight. She is providing a narrative that, whatever its failings, attempts to demonstrate and expose the value of these childrens’ lives, something that is difficult for them to do themselves. That doesn’t mean it should be illegal to abort them, but it does point out that there is a loss. For us to pretend like we aren’t hurting anyone when we abort a child, down syndrom or not, is to be in bad faith.