No because I'm not too lazy or irresponsible to be unable to handle it. Good thing most of the people here will never be parents.
Poll: Would you abort a pregnancy if the child would have Down Syndrome?
- Thread starter llafnwod
- Start date
It depends, really.
First up it would depend on what type of Down's Syndrome it was (there are 3 basic types) and the implications specific to the type.
Actually, strike that. First up would be if my partner and I felt able to deal with a child, full bloody stop.
After knowing the type of Down's Syndrome and it's implications, I'd have a very, very long chat with my Ma, who worked many years as a mental deficiency nurse and then as a developmental educator about whatg it all really means and what the outlooks and prospects were.
Without all that information a definite answer is impossible.
First up it would depend on what type of Down's Syndrome it was (there are 3 basic types) and the implications specific to the type.
Actually, strike that. First up would be if my partner and I felt able to deal with a child, full bloody stop.
After knowing the type of Down's Syndrome and it's implications, I'd have a very, very long chat with my Ma, who worked many years as a mental deficiency nurse and then as a developmental educator about whatg it all really means and what the outlooks and prospects were.
Without all that information a definite answer is impossible.
My aunt has Down Syndrome.
No, there are very few situations where I would consider abortion, and this is most definitely NOT one of them.
No, there are very few situations where I would consider abortion, and this is most definitely NOT one of them.
Yes; at ten weeks the fetus is not that developed and not a person yet (I am not religious). This would save so much burden to the family and on the future person. So I say get rid of it and try again.
Yes, strangely enough I knew that. However, you seem to have failed to pick up on my sarcasm.Dusk17 said:
He had surgery as an infant and an intern nurse screwed up his medication, which triggered a seizure, which triggered the Down's. I think it's possible for it to be latent, right? Maybe his condition was amplified by that, I'm not entirely sure; it's been a while since I actually heard the story.RhombusHatesYou said:
It's a touchy subject, but I would say yes. I voted "Depends", though, since the decision relies on the mother and father consenting. I would rather not have a child suffer or be a burden socially and financially.
I have a child with Downs. I made this decision nine years ago. He is happy and makes my life harder but more interesting. He is not now, nor will he ever be, of normal intelligence. After reading through this I prefer him to most of of the posters on this forum.
Absolutely. Down's syndrome is a detrimental genetic mutation to the species, and were we to live in a world where we had natural predators, natural selection would see to it that they wouldn't reproduce. I have the same idea about any genetically disabled child.
I realise that they are people too, but it is generally accepted that a fetus becomes a person at 21-24 weeks after conception, and abortion is illegal after that, so at the time of abortion they're not even a person, they're a genetically defective proto-person. If you were on a production line, and something defective came along, you'd remove it wouldn't you? Aborting them before they are a person, and have to suffer through life with such a handicap is a kindness.
Hence why I'm not saying drown them at birth, or round up all the people in the world with down's syndrome, cerebal palsy, or one of many other genetic disabilities and shooting them down, THAT would be horrific.
Obviously the ideal would be to use genetic engineering to eliminate these detrimental genetic defects while the child is gestating, but we're a long way from that.
I realise that they are people too, but it is generally accepted that a fetus becomes a person at 21-24 weeks after conception, and abortion is illegal after that, so at the time of abortion they're not even a person, they're a genetically defective proto-person. If you were on a production line, and something defective came along, you'd remove it wouldn't you? Aborting them before they are a person, and have to suffer through life with such a handicap is a kindness.
Hence why I'm not saying drown them at birth, or round up all the people in the world with down's syndrome, cerebal palsy, or one of many other genetic disabilities and shooting them down, THAT would be horrific.
Obviously the ideal would be to use genetic engineering to eliminate these detrimental genetic defects while the child is gestating, but we're a long way from that.
It was a difficult decision, but no. Who are we to decide where life begins and ends? If it was only Down Syndrome, no, I wouldn't have the fetus aborted. The quality of life depends on how willing and ready the parents are to accept a child into their lives. That means preparing for that possibility. You don't expect it or even actually plan for it, but you must be willing to accept it. It's not my place to judge, nor do I actually know for certain what my decision would be unless I faced it in person, however, in hypothesis I would like to think I have the mercy and compassion, as well as the perseverance to not abort my child.
I'm not giving my answer here, but let me just say: It's fascinating to me the overwhelming number of people who said yes. Wish we could get a demographic breakdown of all those responding (like age, gender, whether or not those responding have kids, etc). Of course it's obvious why that's not on this site, but still a pity.