The Sick "Cure" for Downs
By CrabCakes Posted in Life Issues — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
As usual, I preface my post with a disclaimer: I am a moderate Democrat. Also, given the nature of this post, I also want to note that I am pro-choice as well. To elaborate, I think Roe was a bad decision, I'm not a big fan of abortion, but the damage has been done. I don't think outlawing abortion is the most effective method of reducing abortions. So, there's my disclaimer.
All that said, this is disgusting. 90% of people diagnosed with a Downs child choose to abort the child.
I believe that there are valid cases for abortion, and I certainly don't want to make it illegal to have an abortion for reasons like this. But what is it about our society that makes the vast majority of people choose this way?
Is it economic? I realize that raising a disabled child is very costly. Should we increase public assistance to remove this barrier? (I know that "public assistance" raises red flags here, but if it could honestly save lives...)
Is it a breakdown in values? If so, what has caused us to so little value the weakest among us?
Given that Roe isn't going to be overruled any time soon and that almost all of these abortions take place very early on, are there any other suggestions for curbing what, to my eyes at least, can only be described as the inhumanity of so many Americans?
UPDATE: I originally wanted to avoid pushing my own opinion too hard, but, as streiff rightly noted, I ought to at least come right out and say what I think, rather than hinting at it.
So here it is:
I think that the federal government (or even better the states) ought to provide more help to families that have a member who suffers from Downs. In addition to financial assistance, I think there ought to be readily available programs to educate people on coping with Downs. Groups like the one mentioned in this article are good, and I think that there ought to be more like them. The more privately run organizations, the better. The government can provide financial support, but it's not great at "caring."
I don't think it's the governments job to solve the problem that I call a "breakdown in values." I don't know how to solve that one, since I'm not going to advocate for forcing people to go to church. It is disappointing, though.
Will do. I didn't want to be too pushy with my own (liberal) opinion (which I hinted at in my original post).
especially when you clearly identify where you are coming from.
My objection is that I don't see where you offered your opinions on the subject. You asked some good questions which need answered, preferably by you as a starting point.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
The problem is that the stat is skewed. Those who take the test do so at a slight risk to their child. They obviously consider the benefit (being able to abort "deformed" children) greater than the risk it poses to the child. Those who would keep the child regardless never take the test. So it is not surprising that 90% of those that come back positive are aborted.
Sorry I should have given you more time before I posted my own blog piggy backing you.
"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"-Socrates(the real one ;)
You make an excellent point that I hadn't considered. I wonder what percentage of parents actually have the test done.
I'm happy to have you piggyback. Despite my pro-choice position, abortion is an issue about which I care very much. The more dialogue about it, in this post and others, the better.
I think that the federal government (or even better the states) ought to provide more help to families that have a member who suffers from Downs.
I don't think it's the governments job to solve the problem that I call a "breakdown in values."
Why is it the government's job to solve the problem(s) that parents who conceive children with Downs have? I don't particularly think there's any good reason for the government, Federal or State, to adopt some kind of "to each according to their need" style handout system for these situations. I guess the expectation these days is that they should, or that they will (no end of politicians trying to be "compassionate").
Lest I seem quite cold, I'm convinced that in the absence of government-managed and -directed aid, and in the presence of lower taxes that follows from much smaller and more focused government, that we'll find ample support for privately organized charities that collect funds from concerned citizens and operate themselves far more effectively and efficiently that the government ever could, ultimately delivering a higher quality and quantity of assistance.
The government can provide financial support, but it's not great at "caring."
I realize your stated position does recognize that private organizations are preferable. But I think you need to get over the illusion that the government is any better at providing financial support than it is at "caring".
There are plenty of programs available for both the children and parents, at least here in NY. He's entering 1st grade next year and I'm actually heading to the school within the next hour to discuss his services and curriculum for the fall 07 school year.
BTW, we didn't do any of the tests - no need to if abortion isn't being considered.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
that at least some states do have programs to help. I have to admit my ignorance in general, as I have not been personally affected in this regard. This story in the Times was the first time the issue was put on my radar screen.
My wife and I have no children as of yet, but we have already decided that under no circumstance is it acceptable to abort a child except in cases where it would pose a risk to her. I'm glad to hear that there are more out there like my wife and I, who consider a child a blessing no exceptions, than this story in the Times would imply.
Our OB perscribed them, with no prompting from myself, or my wife. Generally, for a lady over 35, they do that more.
As for why are our most helpless not valued?
I think that one is fairly easy to answer. As long as abortion is made available for parents of totally healthy children, for economic reasons, there is no logical gravaman to argue contra aborting a Down's Syndrome child for similar reasons.
It's not one of those deals where we can wash our hands and not legislate morality. Any time we legislate, and many times when we don't legislate, we establish a moral standard.
Roe v. Wade established the standard that aborting was an acceptable way to avoid the economic hardships associated with childbearing. Throw in Down's Syndrome to crank those costs way up, and the abortion rate of Down's Syndrome children, in a society that permits the termination of children for economic betterment, becomes a relatively simple microeconomic consequence.
END
this is perilously close to a Conservatives in the Mist diary.
Tell you what, why don't you take a first crack at posing your answers to your own questions and then open it for discussion.
The topic is a very important one, let's not make it a field experiment in anthropology.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling