Should all Downs Syndrome babies be aborted?

A new test has been developed to test for Down's Syndrome in the womb without the danger of amniocentesis, which carries a risk of miscarriage.

Would this potentially mean a reduction in Down's syndrome babies? Could it even mean that less or no Down's syndrome babies were born?

Would it be best if we never had any Down's syndrome babies in the future?

People with Down's generally die earlier but they can live well into their 50's-60's although the risk of Alzheimers is high. They can be a burden on their family and the state...but they can have a happy and fulfilled life.

Should Down's Syndrome be eradicated?

Should all Downs Syndrome babies be aborted?

Whether or not to abort a fetus is a matter for the couple that created it.

Whether or not to abort a fetus is a matter for the couple that created it.

If the couple are not in agreement?

If the couple are not in agreement?

The final say belongs to the female.

Well, that's taxmans thread sewn up.

Taxman really hasn't thought this through. For all DS foetuses to be aborted every foetus would have to be tested. This isn't going to happen. Some parents would refuse tests if they were opposed to abortion or for other reasons. Other problems than DS would consequently also be missed.

Apart from it all smacking of the Third Reich of course.

A new test has been developed to test for Down's Syndrome in the womb without the danger of amniocentesis, which carries a risk of miscarriage.

 

Would this potentially mean a reduction in Down's syndrome babies? Could it even mean that less or no Down's syndrome babies were born?

 

Would it be best if we never had any Down's syndrome babies in the future?

 

People with Down's generally die earlier but they can live well into their 50's-60's although the risk of Alzheimers is high. They can be a burden on their family and the state...but they can have a happy and fulfilled life.

 

Should Down's Syndrome be eradicated?[/QUOT A Downs syndrome child has the right to live like anyone else ,they can and do live a fullfilled life and give a lot of love . Iv worked with these people I think their great . What this country heading too it makes me wounder?

Taxman really hasn't thought this through. For all DS foetuses to be aborted every foetus would have to be tested. This isn't going to happen. Some parents would refuse tests if they were opposed to abortion or for other reasons. Other problems than DS would consequently also be missed.

 

Apart from it all smacking of the Third Reich of course.

I have. That's why I'm asking the question, rather than giving an answer. I agree it smacks of the Third Reich and I'd never countenance a blanket abortion of Downs Syndrome babies, but isn't that the inevitable consequence of better testing?

If testing is easier and less risky, and DS can be found earlier in pregnancy, then won't more people abort?

Or, seeing as DS tends to involve older women, would they rather have a DS child than none at all?

Honest question. Like I say, my OH cares for DS people, I'm just wondering if advances in science could mean never having DS children in the future. And whether that would be a "right" or "good" thing, or a "horrible" thing.

A new test has been developed to test for Down's Syndrome in the womb without the danger of amniocentesis, which carries a risk of miscarriage.

 

Would this potentially mean a reduction in Down's syndrome babies? Could it even mean that less or no Down's syndrome babies were born?

 

Would it be best if we never had any Down's syndrome babies in the future?

 

People with Down's generally die earlier but they can live well into their 50's-60's although the risk of Alzheimers is high. They can be a burden on their family and the state...but they can have a happy and fulfilled life.

 

Should Down's Syndrome be eradicated?

Risk of Alzheimer's is high in people who live longer (which we're all doing anyway) so it's you might as well bump people off at 80. DS people can and do live happy and independent lives.

It interests me how people react to genetics and genetic diseases. On the one hand the eradication of life limiting genetic diseases which can cause suffering like Huntington's is automatically viewed as a good thing. On the other somatic gene therapy and embryo screening are hugely controversial.

I wonder how people would react if you ask them about eating a food which was genetically engineered to contain extra chromosomes and then what their views are on seedless grapes.

On the whole, we as a society don't react rationally when facing such questions.

 

Honest question. Like I say, my OH cares for DS people, I'm just wondering if advances in science could mean never having DS children in the future. And whether that would be a "right" or "good" thing, or a "horrible" thing.

I can't see DS as a good thing if science is able to 'cure'. Who would actually chose a DS child. In fact who would chose any disability if they didn't have to.

I can't see DS as a good thing if science is able to 'cure'. Who would actually chose a DS child. In fact who would chose any disability if they didn't have to.

People do though. Watched a documentary about a deaf couple who desperately wanted a deaf child. Not everybody who is pregnant with a DS child would choose to terminate. Some people have incredibly positive views about bringing up children with disabilities and as a family we know a couple of other families with disabled children, one with DS. Maybe hard to understand but it does happen that parents do not regard this as a burden.

What about when somebody is carrying twins. It might be that one baby could have DS, the other not:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-469650/The-twins-million.html