# Abortion rates of babies with cleft palates etc.



## lula

I found this entire situation awful and yet, not unexpected.

I am posting a link to an article which is a compliation of several articles I read on the internet concerning rising numbers of abortions performed on fetuses that have cleft palates, deformed feet, Down's Syndrome etc.

Sorry for the drudge link but it was the shortest I could find that had exact article wording.

www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

I believe that several lawsuits are being raised concerning this issue.


----------



## phathui5

I'm not suprised by that. Abortion on demand, for any reason, right? That's the feminist thing.

At least now there are statistics to prove that the women's movement is contributing to discrimination against those with disabilities,


----------



## pugmadmama

For anyone needs support for themselves after choosing an abortion after a poor prenatal diagnosis, A Heartbreaking Choice is a wonderful resource. I just want you to know that not everyone is sitting in judgement of you.


----------



## lula

"At least now there are statistics to prove that the women's movement is contributing to discrimination against those with disabilities.."

Hey, wait let's not get into the abortion rates are a result of the women's movement/feminst debate....that could muddy the waters a bit.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

At least now there are statistics to prove that the women's movement is contributing to discrimination against those with disabilities
what a ridiculous statement.

... has it occurred to any of you that some parents may not want their child to suffer through surgery to correct these things? or that the mothers terminating their pregnancies when they find out about these defects may simply not have enough money to cover health care for their child? or may not have the time or ability to invest in an abnormal child?

i don't think it has nearly as much to do with seeking the "perfect child" as it does with the needs of our lifestyles currently. almost all families need to have both parents out of the home working nowadays just to pay the bills. a great deal of Americans are currently uninsured or have insurance which will not suffice to cover their medical bills. now tack on a child with a birth defect, and all of a sudden these people are facing the poorhouse. or, they may know they are simply unable to care for these children, be it medically, financially, or emotionally.


----------



## lula

klothos said:


> ".. has it occurred to any of you that some parents may not want their child to suffer through surgery to correct these things? or that the mothers terminating their pregnancies when they find out about these defects may simply not have enough money to cover health care for their child? or may not have the time or ability to invest in an abnormal child?"
> 
> Yes, this has occured to me. Has it occured to you that my reasons for posting this may not be because I am a complete anti-abortion freak who has no thoughts other than being a religous zealot? Has it occured to you that some of these women went on to conceive shortly after again in hopes of having a non-deformed child? Has it occured to you that cleft palates are often fixable and several organizations are set up to help with such procedures? (not that I am mitigating potential cost btw) Has it occured to you that these are often later term abortions and not merely carried out because the pregnancy alone was not wanted?
> 
> I think that this is awful regardless of one's overall view on abortion rights etc.
> 
> Also this article is not concerning American families nor American politics.


----------



## Faith

I hate posting in activism.







:

Do you think the 28 week old baby was *really* aborted for cleft palate? From how I read it, you can't abort after 24 weeks unless there is a medical reason. So maybe a mom decided she wanted an abortion after the cut-off date, so the doctor made up a minor defect in order to do the procedure? Or maybe the baby even had it, but it was a total excuse, yk?

I don't know. That just seems more likely-- that there was a "better" reason (like change in the mom's situation) involved, but wasn't allowable under law as a reason to abort, so they lied to do the abortion.

Or maybe I just can't wrap my mind around doing that to a baby just because he wasn't 100% up to my standards...
I am in my second trimester now, and the thought of me not loving this baby and not protecting it for any reason is simply mind-boggling.


----------



## Tigerchild

I have to admit that after dealing with Twin to Twin Transfusion Syndrome in my boys, knowing that not terminating Dylan meant that we could (and off and on it looked like it was probable) lose Tom or put him at enorous risk from severe brain damage if Dylan died 'naturally'...the thought of people terminating pregnancies for cosmetic problems really makes me feel ill.

But then again, having stared that choice (one that was heavily pushed by some of the doctors we had to deal with, I might add) in the face--I know even more now that I am in *no position* to tell another woman what she can and can't deal with in that arena.

It's sort of like pain tolerance. Just because mine is higher doesn't mean that a person who feels it before I do is faking it or less worthy. It means they're different, and know what they can and can't tolerate...and ultimately it's them that will deal with the consequences.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

Has it occured to you that some of these women went on to conceive shortly after again in hopes of having a non-deformed child?
of course it has. i'm guessing many of the women aborting these babies *wanted* their children and may have even planned the pregnancy, but were unable to deal with an abnormality. not every woman feels she's taking *that* risk when trying for a baby.

if i had found out my baby would be born with a birth defect severe enough that i felt it warranted terminating the pregnancy, i would certainly try again for another baby, because i wanted two children ~ and i know that i am only really truly able to care (and care *well*) for healthy children who do not suffer from birth defects. even if i had the financial resources to care for a disabled child, i honestly don't believe i would have the emotional or psychological stability to do so.

Quote:

Has it occured to you that cleft palates are often fixable and several organizations are set up to help with such procedures? (not that I am mitigating potential cost btw)
did you see my comment about not wanting to have a baby or child undergo surgery to correct this? to some parents, it doesn't matter if a defect is *fixable* ~ they don't want their child to have it *at all*.

the potential cost is always an issue, regardless of what organizations are set up to provide assistance. not everyone knows what assistance is out there, and even the people who are aware of the help that's out there can't always get it.

Quote:

Has it occured to you that these are often later term abortions and not merely carried out because the pregnancy alone was not wanted?
see above ~ probably many of the women wanted their babies and planned the pregnancies, but never planned on having a baby with a birth defect (who does?). this is a horrible, wrenching decision for any mother, regardless of whether the pregnancy was planned or not, or the baby was originally wanted or not.

Quote:

doing that to a baby just because he wasn't 100% up to my standards...
this might not be the issue in 100% of the people involved in the statistic. a great many of the parents might simply have been unable to provide proper care for the baby, and knew they would be unable, and so decided to terminate instead of just toughing it out.

lula ~ why *did* you post this?


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *klothos*
a great many of the parents might simply have been unable to provide proper care for the baby, and knew they would be unable, and so decided to terminate instead of just toughing it out.

Most parents who have a child with a disfigurement or disability don't know about it under birth, or sometimes even months later. The vast majority of them manage.

We could offer them the option of infanticide at birth, or within 48 hours of the diagnosis of a serious disability, I suppose. This was fairly common throughout much of history.

For those who find this acceptable, is is also acceptable to you to abort a baby simply because she's a girl (whiich is quite common in some countries)?

What if technology develops to the point where we can tell if a baby will grow up to be taller or shorter than average - or have brown eyes rather than blue - or by gay or straight?

We're definitely on that road. A *deformed foot*?

Dar


----------



## shine

While I feel that it is unfortunate that there are people who feel the need to abort due to fetal abnormalities,I want to offer some education here about cleft palate.

Cleft palate is frequently associated with other internal developmental problems, internal organs are also affected because they were developing at the same time or are connected to the same genetic sequence. It's often not one surgery, but many needed to correct the problems. Facial clefts can also involved the eyes and nose, which are not so easy to repair although it can be done.

That said, prenatal testing is far from accurate, which is why I don't want folks making decisions about termination based on AFP or triple screen. I do know of a case, however, where the fetus' health problem was visualized on ultrasound and not only was causing the fetus' death due to the severity, but there was the possibility that the problem was causing the fetus pain. The fetus in that case died naturally at 28 weeks, but there was the consideration of termination.


----------



## jengi33

Everytime I see a child with Down's Syndrome, I nearly cry thinking about those who have been aborted just because their parents didn't want to deal with a disabled child. It makes me so sad.


----------



## OnlyLovePrevails

disabilities, injury, loss, financial hardship, disrespect, fear.... these are things that surround us all today. i wish it weren't so.
i do hope we'll all simply pray for a peaceful outcome for all humans involved in these situations.
i thank God for my two healthy, well children.


----------



## phathui5

"has it occurred to any of you that some parents may not want their child to suffer through surgery to correct these things?"

Yes, definately better to abort them than fix a funny looking lip (cleft lip).


----------



## pugmadmama

This is why I have such a difficult time with this issue,

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
...Yes, definately better to abort them than fix a funny looking lip (cleft lip).

That was written _after_ someone had shared this information:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *shine*
...Cleft palate is frequently associated with other internal developmental problems, internal organs are also affected because they were developing at the same time or are connected to the same genetic sequence...

We, as a society, seem to have such a burning need to judge individual women and their choices in a negative way. We will take anything and run with it, ignoring all the information that might make this a less than black and white issue.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
...For those who find this acceptable, is is also acceptable to you to abort a baby simply because she's a girl (whiich is quite common in some countries)?...

Let's see...would I rather a baby girl be aborted and her spirit set free or would I rather her be born into a family and society that loathes her before birth and sees her as nothing but a burden?

I think there are some things worse than death. Being born to not only parents who don't want you but into a society that doesn't value you is one of them.

I support differently-abled activism and I support activism that elevates the value of women in societies all over the world (including our own). But for right here, right now, I support these women's right to not take that entire fight on their own shoulders and their child's shoulders. When someone tells me they are not strong enough to do something, I offer to share the burden. But when even what I can do doesn't help, I simply believe them. Some women are not strong enough to deal with these issues, which is sad, but forcing them to have these babies is not the answer. Changing the global society these women live in is the answer.


----------



## lab

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
This is why I have such a difficult time with this issue,

That was written _after_ someone had shared this information:

We, as a society, seem to have such a burning need to judge individual women and their choices in a negative way. We will take anything and run with it, ignoring all the information that might make this a less than black and white issue.

Let's see...would I rather a baby girl be aborted and her spirit set free or would I rather her be born into a family and society that loathes her before birth and sees her as nothing but a burden?

I think there are some things worse than death. Being born to not only parents who don't want you but into a society that doesn't value you is one of them.

I support differently-abled activism and I support activism that elevates the value of women in societies all over the world (including our own). But for right here, right now, I support these women's right to not take that entire fight on their own shoulders and their child's shoulders. When someone tells me they are not strong enough to do something, I offer to share the burden. But when even what I can do doesn't help, I simply believe them. Some women are not strong enough to deal with these issues, which is sad, but forcing them to have these babies is not the answer. Changing the global society these women live in is the answer.


Excellant post!


----------



## ekblad9

This is a messy issue and I shouldn't be here but







: I am so....

What about giving the child up for adoption? Dh and I plan to foster and possibly adopt disabled children when our youngest children are a bit older. There are many, many loving families out there that would do the same. Chances are after the baby is born the mother may not want to part with him or her.


----------



## Greaseball

OK, so no one wants these children aborted...how do taxpayers feel about paying for surgery, special education, and the like? I'm fine with it, but given the hostility toward paying for poor people's health care, I'm sure some of us won't want to.

I read something interesting in Mendelsohn's "Male Practice." He mentioned that for abortions performed after amnio, the majority were on female fetuses (though males are more likely to have most of the genetic disorders). So perhaps it's not a women's movement thing after all...these people had decided they could accept a handicapped child if it were male.


----------



## ekblad9

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
OK, so no one wants these children aborted...how do taxpayers feel about paying for surgery, special education, and the like? I'm fine with it, but given the hostility toward paying for poor people's health care, I'm sure some of us won't want to.

.

I'm all for using my taxpayer monies for that!


----------



## phathui5

"He mentioned that for abortions performed after amnio, the majority were on female fetuses (though males are more likely to have most of the genetic disorders). "

That's actually really interesting, and kinda sad. So people are fighting for "women's rights" to discriminate against the female fetuses.


----------



## mamalisa

31 years ago my best friend was laying in a crib in an orphanage in China. She was never picked up, her head was flat on one side so much that it deformed one side of her face. The front of her face was severly disfigured by a cleft lip/palate, she also had a severly deformed nose. She had no value to the people of her country. She was left to die. Thankfully, she was chosen by her parents, adopted and brought to the US. After 20 years of surgeries every few years, she is still pretty disfigured, though if you know her you wouldn't even notice it. She is one of the strongest, smartest, most beautiful, most amazing people I know.

She wouldn't have gotten the medical care she needed in China and would most likely be dead today if not for her parents deciding that they needed to take this poor disfigured baby home to America. They were also very well off and able to take on the financial burden of caring for a child with costly medical issues. I don't know what else I can say


----------



## Greaseball

And people often think I'm being heartless and judgmental when I suggest that potential adoptive parents consider something other than perfectly healthy, white American babies. They counteract with "Well, if I were conceiving naturally, I'd have the right to want a healthy baby; why can't I specify that's what I want when I adopt, too?"


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
And people often think I'm being heartless and judgmental when I suggest that potential adoptive parents consider something other than perfectly healthy, white American babies...

Have you adopted a child of color with serious health issues? If not, then I do think you are being heartless and judgemental.

I will never, ever understand how a person who can concieve naturally, and who has never adopted, can feel okay giving advice to infertile people on something as personal and private as how they should build their families.


----------



## Greaseball

Everyone has an opinion about something. I'm sure there are people on this thread who think no one should have an abortion but who have never had an abortion themselves. Their opinions still are rational.

The baby described in the situation above would not have had a home if the adoptive parents decided they only wanted children with no disabilities. We tell women all the time to put their disabled children up for adoption instead of aborting them, but then add, "Oh, but _I_ don't want them!"

I am not able to adopt - no money, no space, no job, no stability. I know, excuses excuses...but that's why I don't have a disabled adopted child, unlike those who are able to adopt and just refuse anyone not perfectly healthy.


----------



## Jane

I don't see anything wrong with aborting babies with down syndrome.
Not that it should be mandatory (ever!), but I don't see the point of the testing if abortion isn't the idea.
If it leads to additional discrimination against people with disabilities, that would be awful, but I think that's a separate issue.


----------



## Greaseball

Some claim the point of testing is "education" but I also don't see any reason to go through with it if you would keep the pregnancy anyway. Besides, with all the false positives, who knows what could happen?


----------



## Nikki Christina

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ekblad7*
What about giving the child up for adoption? Dh and I plan to foster and possibly adopt disabled children when our youngest children are a bit older. There are many, many loving families out there that would do the same. Chances are after the baby is born the mother may not want to part with him or her.

planning to do something YEARS from now, when you are in a better situation is a bit different from finding yourself pregnant & having a few short months to prepare for a child with severe disabilities

& the reality is theres more children out there with disabilities then their are families willing to inconvience themselves

hey & everyone whos on the give em up for adoption bandwagon.. theres a little black baby boy up in our local PICU now.. has a g-tube, a vent, on seizure meds.. whole lotta other issues..
hes lived there almost a year 1/2 now.. never been outside.. he moved from NICU to PICU at 7 months old...

anybody want him????

anybody??????????????


----------



## polka hop

*
Just some food for thought.


----------



## Raven67

I can't sit in judgment of any of these women who chose abortion. I have a child now, and before she was born, I declined testing because I knew I would love and accept her regardless of any problems. Since I had ample resources, and no other children, I was not concerned. Well, now that I am a mom, and have many responsiblities, I may see it differently. If and when I ttc again, I have already decided to have an amnio. I can't say for sure if I would abort, but there are some conditions that might lead me to consider abortion. With limited resources, and another child to care for, my situation has changed. I am the only one who knows what I can handle. I give these women the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they know what they can handle. It's a heartbreaking decision to abort a pregnancy. It is really no one else's business.


----------



## Greaseball

It's true, there are a few cases where APF/amnio can uncover a defect that could be fixed by medical intervention. I'd be heartbroken if my baby had serious defects, possibly fatal ones, that I could have prevented with a simple blood test...but I'd be equally shattered if I had agreed to such testing and then terminated or intervened somehow after getting a false positive.

It's one of those things a pregnant woman hopes won't be an issue for her, and for most, it isn't.


----------



## Dar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nikki Christina*
hey & everyone whos on the give em up for adoption bandwagon.. theres a little black baby boy up in our local PICU now.. has a g-tube, a vent, on seizure meds.. whole lotta other issues..
hes lived there almost a year 1/2 now.. never been outside.. he moved from NICU to PICU at 7 months old...

anybody want him????

Yes.

If whoever is in charge of such things would allow me to adopt him, then yes, I will. If you really think I would be permitted to do so (single mom, not much income or stability, but somehow things work out) then let me know how. My understanding had always been that I would not qualify to adopt, but I've always told everyone I know who was sexually active and not wanting a child that I would be willing to adopt any child they might become pregnant with.

That offer would stand for anyone reading this, too, just BTW.

Dar


----------



## Greaseball

That's another bad thing...not only are there kids out there no one wants, there are prospective parents who other people don't think should be allowed to be parents! So if there is a boy like the one described above, and a gay couple or single parent or low-income person wants him, the answer will be no. The only people who would be allowed to adopt him are those most likely not to want him.









My BIL and his wife were turned down by all the agencies on the grounds that the wife is a good deal older than he is. They called it an "unconventional lifestyle." Luckily they were able to adopt anyway (and they did say they were willing to take any kind of child at all; first one was a healthy white american infant, then they adopted three healthy black children from ethiopia, ages 8-13). But these are good people who just want to be parents, and most people told them no.


----------



## Nikki Christina

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dar*
Yes.

If whoever is in charge of such things would allow me to adopt him, then yes, I will. If you really think I would be permitted to do so (single mom, not much income or stability, but somehow things work out) then let me know how. My understanding had always been that I would not qualify to adopt, but I've always told everyone I know who was sexually active and not wanting a child that I would be willing to adopt any child they might become pregnant with.

That offer would stand for anyone reading this, too, just BTW.

Dar

im not even sure how you would go about it.. I have a very limited knowledge of his situation from what the PICU nurses told me when my son was hospitilized back in november..
my son was there 2 1/2 weeks & their beds are beside one another..

he was born to a single mother who didnt have much medical care..when he was born & had problems she said she did not want him..
shes never come to see him.. but they have to get permission from her to do simple things like cut his hair & nails









there are no homes in SC equiped to take him & he cannot be sent to another state that would have a special home for him.. so he has to stay in PICU until hes placed with someone.. whoever takes him (foster care) will recieve at least $300 a week to care for him
yet when I ran into a nurse I know & asked about him last month. she said he was still there


----------



## Greaseball

At least the hospital sounds like a decent place...better than warehousing him in some boarding facility for kids no one wants. That mother's parental rights should be terminated.


----------



## Nikki Christina

i dunno.. the PICU nurses are VERY busy..

one night my son was dropping his heart rate VERY low.. 2 nurses where with him for hours bagging him & trying to stimulate him
that left 1 other nurse caring for 5 other kids..
well since this is picu none of those kids where in good shape..
one tiny baby had RSV & kept stopping breathing
one teenager kept waking & being combactive.. one time even breaking staples & having to be rushed back to surgery
one 3 year old would wake & SCREAM bloody murder

so with my son thisclose to dying & all the other sickly kiddos requiring more care then this kid whos not sick.. he gets put last on the list
they did end up getting a NICU nurse to run over & bath, feed , & give him his meds.. but she came over.. did this all in 10 mins & ran back over to take care of her babies

he gets propped up in his bed, or highchair to watch TV an awfull lot.. not because they dont WANT to hold him.. but because they cant

awhile back a question was asked here in activism about what type of foundation would you open.. I meantioned this boy & said Id like to run a home to take care of kids like him

anyone wanna fund it??


----------



## Nikki Christina

heres the thread im talking about
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ght=foundation


----------



## lula

Hey, not a lot of time to be on the boards lately but a while back there was the question of why I posted this....well here it is.
Full disclosure, I am fairly anti-abortion, pro-life yadda yadda yadda HOWEVER I do feel there is full spectrum of issues involved, am not convinced that the best way to effectively end abortions is a law making them illegal, etc etc I could go on forever about all of this but frankly who cares? the reason I posted this was not becuase I felt my anti-abortion hackles raise and I went rampaging to the little innocent Activism boards.









Actually the article just struck me as horrible because one of my best friends from college was born with a severe cleft palate and the thought of someone not wanting him because of that is horrifying to me. Yep, pure gut reaction. I also find it an interesting issue on several levels and I wanted to see what other people thought, sorry I was a philosophy major and I am addicted to discussion.

So that's it...I am infinitely curious as to what people think.


----------



## Greaseball

I think it's horrible that people would choose abortion for cosmetic reasons. I read the part about cleft lip causing other difficulties as well, but there are all kinds of other conditions that can cause nutritional difficulties in children and no one talks of aborting them.

I'm sure if technology becomes available to see exactly what a child will look like, people will abort based on not wanting a child who is short, has brown eyes, frizzy hair, etc.







But if you're going to be that closed-minded about it, you would probably only conceive with someone who fit your ideal standard of human beauty, so the chances of an ugly child may be nil.


----------



## dingogirl

Quote:

From how I read it, you can't abort after 24 weeks unless there is a medical reason.
I don't call myself pro-life or pro-choice because I think both sides go to the extreme, but I do object to abortion at 24 weeks (unless there's a medical reason). One of my employees said her friend had an abortion at the sixth month. And although my employee considers herself pro choice, she was pretty upset that her friend decided one day that she didn't want to have the baby and was able to get an abortion. I understand that it's rare, but why should it happen at all? I had a stillbirth at 5 months. He wasn't a "blob of tissue" My husband held our baby in his hand. He had hair on his head, fingers and toes and a beautiful little face. Everything a baby has.


----------



## phathui5

"anybody??????????????"

Ok. We're in the process of becoming foster parents. We do need a bigger place though.


----------



## aussiemum

Lula, I'm glad you started this thread. I agree, it is interesting to read the various responses. My take on this--

I am very pro-choice. Late term abortions make me feel uncomfortable (past about 20-24 weeks), but I accept that I can't possibly understand what circumstances lead to an individual decision to have a late termination. Go look at the website Pug put up if you want a little glimpse into that sort of heartbreak.....

On the personal level, I have had two natural, healthy pregnancies & have two healthy children. ALtho there were a few problems with my first that required hospital investigation, in the end everything was fine & she ultimately had nothing wrong with her. I am grateful every day that my two children are healthy little people. Every healthy day that I have with them is a blessing (& I'm not a religious woman, but YKWIM); to me there are no certainties in life & there's no telling if one day they might develop who knows what illness, or worse.......

I didn't have any pre-natal testing done- DH & I made the choice not to have amnio, AFP, etc. etc. because I didn't want the risks associated with it, & I guess I just didn't want to know. We didn't discuss much what we would do if one of the kids showed pre-natal abnormalities, altho in my mind I knew that I would only consider an abortion (for these wanted children) if there were birth defects that would lead to stillbirth or a situation of permanent vegetative impairment ie: hydroencephaly, vital organs missing, etc. To ease my mind a bit, I did have a scan done at 16 weeks for both pregnancies. I told the sonographer that I just wanted to know if all the major 'bits' were there, & that I didn't even want to know the sex of the baby. Having an abortion for Down's or cleft palate or club foot never entered into my mind, maybe because I know/have grown up with people with these conditions. However, I have never had to deal with that sort of situation, & I can only guess at what my reaction would be had my story turned out otherwise. So,







to any of you out there who have been in this situation. I make no judgement on any of you...... every person & every family is different, & we have to find our peace where we can........


----------



## Aura_Kitten

everyone has already said what i could have.

i just want to add that i, too, refused the amnio, down's syndrome screening, and all of the rest of those... first, i honestly didn't see a need (those things don't run in my family), but i also know that yes, they do have many false positives, and i didn't want to put myself through the heartbreak and stress of even *thinking* i was going to have a child who wasn't normal and healthy.

i did, however, ask to have her screened for a heart defect, because i know how dangerous they can be, and because they run in my family. i was told that was something they couldn't diagnose.







so i just have to wait and see if she'll be ok or not.

this isn't something i'd consider ending the pregnancy about though ~ i know that i had heart failure when i was a toddler because of my heart problems, and by all that's "standard" i *should* be dead. but, i'm not. i know that if my little girl is born with a heart defect, she could suffer through the same, and she might die. but then again, she might be as ferocious as her mommy and decide to fight through it and live. there are so many "maybe's" involved in this... to me that's a lot different than being able to say to someone, "look, your baby is going to be born with no legs," or something.


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

"...while a further two were aborted for cleft lip alone."

This is insane to me. I could ALMOST understand the cleft palate because my cousin has been through so many surgeries for her cleft lip AND palate. It really is hard to learn to feed a babe with a cleft palate so you don't drown them. Well, I assume there have been advances in this area, but still... I haven't had any of the prenatal testing on either pregnancy because of all the false positives. My OB was very upfront about this and made sure I took it into consideration about whether to test or not. For me, it isn't an issue of whether I would have/keep my baby...I would period. But I know that not everyone is the same. Anyway...The point of my post was to be that I think phathui5 was referring to just the cleft lip part in her post and that I think some ppl didn't catch/know that you can have a cleft lip without having a cleft palate and vice versa tho they do usually go hand in hand.







to you all mamas


----------



## spatulagirl

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
It's true, there are a few cases where APF/amnio can uncover a defect that could be fixed by medical intervention. I'd be heartbroken if my baby had serious defects, possibly fatal ones, that I could have prevented with a simple blood test...but I'd be equally shattered if I had agreed to such testing and then terminated or intervened somehow after getting a false positive.

It's one of those things a pregnant woman hopes won't be an issue for her, and for most, it isn't.

I have a hard time thinking that people get an AFP test and if it comes back with a "bad" result they just run out and get an abortion. I do imagine they have more tests done and level II ultrasounds and whatnot... or at least I hope so!

We did the AFP this time because we are giving birth in a remote location. if the test came back abnormal then we would have had a level II ultrasound and then an Amnio etc. if all those tests came back with a problem then we would have been flown to the States to either terminate or have the baby where more resources were available. Not once did the doc say, if the results are bad then its this or that. It was, if the results are bad then we dig further and find out if they are true.


----------



## EFmom

I have no tolerance at all for the opinion that *other* people should be adopting children who have disability X. Excuses, excuses is right. If you are really all that concerned, pick up the phone and call your state adoption service before you assume that you are too old/young/rich/poor/single etc. to parent these children. See http://www.adopt.org/waitingchildren/index.html for some of the children who are waiting for families. Qualifications vary by locality, but most places would be delighted to have people volunteer to parent severely disabled children, so don't discount yourself.

Otherwise, as an adoptive parent myself, I won't tell you what kind of burdens you should be willing to shoulder if you don't tell me the same.


----------



## guestmama9924

I am curious though at those of you grossed out by this practice, do you avoid prenatal testing? Basically that is the point of most testing of the fetal development. To give you a shot of aborting.
Personally, I am PRO CHOICE and proud of it, but did NOT do prenatal testing because I would not have chosen termination regardless.
Just curious how you can blame "feminism" for an archaic PATRIARCHIAL practice of OBSTETRICAL INTERVENTION to ultimately push us ALL into a designer race. Women are the victim here, and our babies.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones

As with all these abortion threads, I am amazed at how easily many can vilify the parents. Having never walked in their shoes. Something rings in my mind about "judge not lest ye be............" ?????????

I am completely fed up with the hypocrisy of the pro-life movement.

Where are the statistics on the number of babies conceived in a petri dish who subsequently died in the dish or in the womb? How many millions to you suppose that is up to now? There is a less than 20% success rate, turned around that says 80% fail. 80% of the eggs are purposely fertilized knowing they will not survive..................

When will you all get the balls to speak out against IVF? Or do you think there is a difference? It's OK to force fertilization and then attempt implantation?

Ha. The Catholic Church speaks out now about refusing communion to those who are pro-choice, yet remains mute about those who use(d) IVF. Yet, it is against the teachings of the church. Even they take the easy way out and only target the ppl who it is easy to target................hypocrites.

Adoption? You all realize why adoption rates have plummeted? Why adopt when modern medicine promises a baby of your own?

Don't test? Well, here I can speak from experience. I didn't test. The spontaneous abortion rate after amnio is 1 in 200. Again, these ppl choose to take that risk. At least one in 200 will lose that baby...............for no other reason. Is that OK with you pro-lifers? My third child has down syndrome. It is undeniably hard. Every step. My son is healthy but I know many who have needed numerous surgeries, numerous medications, numerous therapies. Many of these children will suffer greatly bcuz their parents do not have the resources available to care for them. While I am uncomfortable with abortion for these reasons (it smacks of eugenics), I cannot decide for someone else. Fact is, not everyone can parent these children and they are the last to be adopted if they are adopted at all. Let me close with the fact that we are losing our right to not test. If you refuse you don't get doctor/midwife support. Read all the threads about pg women's rights.

Those of you that support Bush but yet would pay more in taxes to help these children? You surely know that Bush's tax cuts directly affect these children. There are half the services available now than when my guy was little. Can't imagine how few MAJOR services (surgeries, etc) are available.................and no help for afterward. It is the disabled who get cut out first, followed by the elderly. Rejoice in your tax cuts.............

.29 of every tax dollar goes to military
.20 of every tax dollar goes to the *interest* on the debt (NOT the debt itself)
.20 of every tax dollar goes to medicare (we could ALL have socialized medicine for that much !)

That leaves .31 for each and every other item in the federal budget. And there are many.

If abortion should ever become illegal, so will IVF.


----------



## Greaseball

When you conceive a child, you are, in a way, saying to god (or whatever you call it) "I accept anything." I suppose there are some things you can be certain of, such as race if you conceive with someone of the same race, but everything else is a surprise. Gender, looks, health, ability, whether the child will survive for long after birth...you are essentially saying none of these things matter. (Until you start in with the testing.)

So when adoptive parents tell biological parents that they don't know what they're talking about because they don't feel pressured to accept "anything," I think they're wrong. I have to accept whatever I've been dealt; I don't get to fill out a form that lists the things I don't want.


----------



## Piglet68

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild*
...having stared that choice ... in the face--I know even more now that I am in *no position* to tell another woman what she can and can't deal with in that arena.

Here Here!









Having also recently "been there", you'd be amazed how un-selfrighteous you can become real quick. My heart goes out to anyone who faces this, and I know now from experience that I have no right to judge another parent for his/her decision.

We each know what we can and cannot live with, and what we are prepared to face to test those limits. And, for me personally, mourning the loss of a pregnancy, even half way through, is significantly easier to deal with than bringing a child to term who will die shortly thereafter (I'm referring to trisomy 13 and 18, which is two of the things I was tested for with my amnio).

As for Down Syndrome, I'm betting that most mothers, if they had the choice *before* they conceived, would choose to have a child without DS. If you are adamently against an abortion under any circumstances, then you don't have that choice and it's moot. But for other parents, their views on pregnancy and abortion may be such that they DO feel they have a choice. Mourn the loss of a pregnancy, or deal with the lifelong (and often lifetime: my DS cousin is approaching her 50th birthday and her in-their-late-seventies parents still essentially have a 5 year old in the home) challenges of caring for a mentally handicapped child. If option A is far less severe for you than option B, it's pretty obvious which one to choose.


----------



## Piglet68

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
When you conceive a child, you are, in a way, saying to god (or whatever you call it) "I accept anything."

Well, not exactly. There are some things you may have control over, depending on your personal system of ethics and morals. We, each and every one of us, exercise choice in our fates every day. We choose to get into a car and drive on a deadly highway, or we choose to go to a doctor rather than "accept our fate" of having a potentially lethal, untreated condition....(which, as you know, happens in this country for religious convictions).

The difference is in each person's own systems of ethics, and what choices those ethics allow them. Someone who is anti-U/S "deprives" themselves of the choice of finding out gender (which can be tough when everyone around you is finding out). Someone who is anti-daycare will have less options available in terms of who works, how much money the family brings in, etc. Someone who is vegan has less choices about what they can use for nutrition. I would not expect any of these people to "cave in" simply to increase their ability to choose, anymore than I would expect someone to not take advantage of a choice if they have it.

So my point is, if your morals and ethics allow you certain choices, then you have every right to exercise those choices. Hopefully, while respecting those for whom it isn't a choice.


----------



## AmyB

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Jun/06012004/utah/171596.asp

The Drudge report is merely trying to turn public opinion against women like those described in the linked article.

Drudge is trying to make it sound like all fetal medical problems are minor or can be fixed with surgery. That's simply not true.

No matter how much anti-abotion activists wish that abortion was a black and white good v.s evil thing there are too many individual circumstances. Even the Utah legislaure is beginning to understand that there is a point where legislating medical choices becomes a greater evil than performing abortions.

--AmyB


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AmyB*
No matter how much anti-abotion activists wish that abortion was a black and white good v.s evil thing there are too many individual circumstances.
--AmyB

I know that for me, personally, abortion is not something I would consider. BUT, I have not been in the position where my life is at stake, etc. I don't think abortion could ever be a black and white issue. Any issue can be taken to excess/extremes on both ends.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
When you conceive a child, you are, in a way, saying to god (or whatever you call it) "I accept anything." I suppose there are some things you can be certain of, such as race if you conceive with someone of the same race, but everything else is a surprise. Gender, looks, health, ability, whether the child will survive for long after birth...you are essentially saying none of these things matter. (Until you start in with the testing.)

So when adoptive parents tell biological parents that they don't know what they're talking about because they don't feel pressured to accept "anything," I think they're wrong. I have to accept whatever I've been dealt; I don't get to fill out a form that lists the things I don't want.

Do you eat nothing but crap when you are pregnant? Do you shoot heroin? Do you put yourself in stressful situations over and over? No? Why not? Because you are trying to positively influence the health of your fetus. Don't tell me that most pregnant women just throw caution to the wind and "take what they get".

Further, adoptive parents of the "healthy newborn" you scorn so much are taking the same risks every other parent of a healthy newborn takes. There are no guarentees. That same baby could become very sick, it could develope a chronic or fatal health condition and so on.

Infertile women have to give up being pregnant, they have to give up giving birth, they often times have to give up breastfeeding, so your advice to them is to give up their dream of a healthy newborn too? I mean, why not? They've been robbed of everything else _you have_, why not that?

Do you really not see how your remarks could come across as "heartless" and "judgemental" to infertile women? If you want to promote adoption of special needs children, _start with yourself_. And if you can't adopt, for whateve reason, then promote it in a general way. Don't single out women who have already given up so much in terms of fertility and motherhood.


----------



## Greaseball

Quote:

Do you eat nothing but crap when you are pregnant? Do you shoot heroin? Do you put yourself in stressful situations over and over? No? Why not? Because you are trying to positively influence the health of your fetus. Don't tell me that most pregnant women just throw caution to the wind and "take what they get".
I don't do these things because they are not things I do anyway. Although I did give up coffee and cigarettes. Though from what I've read, most pg women do not.

But yes, I see how people could think I was unfairly judging them. I really should stay off the topic of adopting kids with disabilities, because someone's feelings always get hurt, but it's such a sore point for me.

But what about the topic of not aborting kids with disabilities? It's like we're saying that adoptive mothers should have the right to deny a home to a disabled child, but biological mothers should have to keep that child. Although I guess it's different when the child would end up dead, as in an abortion.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Greaseball*
...It's like we're saying that adoptive mothers should have the right to deny a home to a disabled child, but biological mothers should have to keep that child...

Would you please get _off_ the adoptive mother's backs??? They are not the problem! You really seem determined to let yourself off the hook with your self described "excuses, excuses" but, wow, you are not giving an inch to women who become mothers via adoption.

It's NOT "adoptive mothers should have the right to deny a home to a disabled child", it's ALL of us. Because if the child I gave birth to developed or was born with a disability, I'd deal with it. I'd find away to make it work. And so would you. But I'm not putting that kind of passion and effort into adopting a speical needs child. Neither are you. Nor is most of society.

The problem isn't adoptive mothers or biological mothers. It's me. And you. And all of us who have not opened our own homes to a special needs child, who have not made socialized medicine a reality, who have not enforced and expanded the ADA, and so on.

That's why I'm unwilling to sit here and criticize these women who have had these abortions. That's why I'm unwilling to change the laws that allowed these abortions to happen. That's why I'm unwilling to scapegoat women, be it the biological mothers forced into these situations or the adoptive mothers who opt out of them.


----------



## Greaseball

OK, for the rest of the thread I won't mention adoptive mothers. It was kind off OT anyway.


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

Els' 3 Ones:

I'm curious as to where you got this: "Let me close with the fact that we are losing our right to not test. If you refuse you don't get doctor/midwife support."

Every woman I know that has been pg, including myself of course, was given a sheet of paper to initial the tests you want and the ones you don't want. Then you sign it, they put it in your record and that's the end of it if you don't want the tests. Just wondering why you say you don't get doctor/midwife support if you don't test.


----------



## Greaseball

In some practices, you can be discharged as a patient if you don't do what the doctor wants. It's a petty, vindictive way of getting back at those of us who dare to disobey, especially when for some of us, insurance dictates that we can only see one doctor.


----------



## Viola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CraftyMommaOf2*
"...while a further two were aborted for cleft lip alone."

This is insane to me. I could ALMOST understand the cleft palate because my cousin has been through so many surgeries for her cleft lip AND palate. It really is hard to learn to feed a babe with a cleft palate so you don't drown them.

Honestly, it's insane to me too. I can almost understand aborting for severe problems, but cleft lip and club foot???

I know a little girl, now 11, who has a cleft palate, non-functioning pituitary gland and some sort of heart anomaly. She has had lots of surgery and because it is a palate issue, she will never look quite "normal". She does require growth hormone shots, physical therapy and had to have heart surgery several times. Her mom tried so hard to have a baby, and this was the only pregnancy she was actually able to carry to term. So they wanted to have a lot of children, but could only have the one. They have plenty of financial resources to pay for her surgery, and all the other stuff she does or needs like piano lessons, soccer, braces and so on. She is a happy active kid, really bright and it's hard to imagine someone could think it wasn't worth the expense and effort to bring her into the world.

On the other hand, I think about if it were my sister whose finances were much worse and what if that had been her child. I don't think the child would have fared as well--she might not even have lived. So I won't judge people who do what they have to do, but I'm still disturbed about cleft lip and clubfoot. I do start to wonder if we will ever get to the point of discovering in utero if a child has a genetic propensity towards things that could affect him negatively, such as homosexuality or obesity, and then terminating based on that.


----------



## Viola

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AmyB*
Drudge is trying to make it sound ... abortions.
[/TD]
[/TR][/TABLE]
Good points.


----------



## Changed

******************************


----------



## Jane

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
1. HYDROCEPHALUS is NOT usually fatal! It does not mean that child will be retared. It does not mean that child will never gian conciousness.

I would have to assume she just got hydrocephalus and anencephaly mixed up.
The drudge report didn't write that story. That's a daily mail story from the UK, I believe. That's why it talks about limits on abortion that are somewhat different than in the US. Most of the stuff on the drudge report is articles from other sources. I don't think he has a particular abortion agenda.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Apricot*
...Most of the stuff on the drudge report is articles from other sources. I don't think he has a particular abortion agenda.

Matt Drudge is outspoken about being anti-choice and about the fact that stopping legal abortion is an important issue to him. From an interview in Radar Magazine:
"_*DRUDGE*: Oh, yeah. I'm a prolife conservative who doesn't want the government to tax me. There are issues that I'm so frightened of-1.2 million abortions a year scares the hell out of me. Oftentimes when I see these superstorms forming, you know, sometimes-I wouldn't be honest if I didn't think it was retribution. I also am opposed to big government. Now, you would argue: Well, how could you support a government interfering with the rights of a woman over her own body? But I would argue: No. That all life is sacred. Abortion is the issue that really motivates me."_


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

Every woman I know that has been pg, including myself of course, was given a sheet of paper to initial the tests you want and the ones you don't want. Then you sign it, they put it in your record and that's the end of it if you don't want the tests.
i've never been given something like that.

the first time, i wasn't even given a choice ~ i was told i had to have the tests, and i had them. no information, no informed consent, no chance for refusal.

this time around, i went into my dr's office with all of the research i had done since having my son, and told them right up front i wasn't going to submit to anything ~ no blood tests, no internal exams, no ultrasound, etc. they looked at me like i was crazy, proceeded to pressure me to have numerous tests that were completely unnecessary, and finally i agreed to have _one_ blood test ~ to screen for pregnancy and iron levels ~ and that was it. they ended up writing a note and sticking it in my chart that i had refused certain tests... the rest, they made no note about and continued to ask every few visits if i was _sure_ i didn't want them.







the only time i had any other tests was when i asked for them, after having some bleeding (i wanted to find out what was wrong, if anything). and even those were completely on my terms...

Quote:

In some practices, you can be discharged as a patient if you don't do what the doctor wants.
yes. unfortunately that really is the case.


----------



## Jane

Thanks pugmadmama. I didn't know he was pro-life.


----------



## lab

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
4. There is no point in worrying about all those aborted babies. You cannot stop this from happening. God will take care of those babies and those mothers will face judgement wether it be from society, God or themselves.


Oh my!







:


----------



## Changed

I have no idea who this person is.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
Even if a woman isn't a christian or if she's prolife all the way do you not thing she will judge herself over and over? That's not being hateful it's reality. We all judge ourselves for the things we do, so does society. Can't help that.

Why did you say "Christian"? Do you know that there are other religions that are against abortion as a matter of doctrine? Do you know that there are Christians who are pro-choice?

I've known women who had abortions who didn't judge themselve "over and over." They see it as a surgical procedure to have a clump of tissues removed. End of story. I don't "judge" myself for having had sinus surgery, they don't judge themselves for having had abortions.

The idea that _every_ woman will revisit her abortion "over and over" is anti-choice propaganda. Some women have a terrible time after having an abortion, some women never look back.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

The idea that every woman will revisit her abortion "over and over" is anti-choice propaganda.
yup. i know plenty of women who have had abortions that not only don't continue to think about what they had done, they consider it a great decision and believe their lives are better for it.










is it just me or did this thread rapidly degenerate into the standard abortion/no-abortion debate?


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

klothos"
is it just me or did this thread rapidly degenerate into the standard abortion/no-abortion debate?"

Yep :LOL

I assumed that it was common practice to have the consent forms for testing since it was women from 4 diff states. Man, that is sad


----------



## Els' 3 Ones

Quote:

I'm curious as to where you got this: "Let me close with the fact that we are losing our right to not test. If you refuse you don't get doctor/midwife support."
With all 3 of my pg I refused testing. No form to sign, but noted in all my files (I had 3 diff practitioners. 1 DR, 2 Midwives). My last child was born with down syndrome.......at home. 2yrs later, I bumped into the midwife and during our convo she indicated that after that experience they demand the blood test. With follow up if indicated (







very high false positives on that!) I've also met countless women who had Dr's that would not let them decline testing. So it goes...............

Quote:

Though there are millions of handicapped and disabled children in this world who need a loving family because I already have one of my own I am not eligable to adopt. I would though! They know as well as I do that when shit hits the fan I can't handle another child like that.
I don't know about adoption, but I know for a fact you can foster special needs children. I have good friends with a profound dd who took special classes in order to do just that. Doesn't make sense to me that you couldn't then adopt.............personally, I think we are better able to take it on, we have an idea of what to expect.

Quote:

Perhaps the same dipwad decided that maternal screenings are only for people who would abort a baby who was imperfect. This is NOT true. I would have sooner given my life to save that of my childs but I did have all the prenatal testing. Whole nine yards... Tscreen, amnio, NST, biophysicals. THey did it all. Why? Preparation!!! It's alot easier to deal with a child like ,mine when you have been preparing for it for a few months.
This dipwad believes that screenings are big money making tools for the medicos and the risk to my pregnancy is too high. I did not do amnio (was 35 when I had my first child - required by most practices) with any of mine for THAT reason - 1 in 200 will experience a spontaneous abortion. Why do pro-life ppl not protest against this? This is a CHOICE that ppl make to risk aborting their child.


----------



## phathui5

"Why do pro-life ppl not protest against this? "

I think that some of them do. I know I do, and wouldn't have the test done myself.


----------



## Els' 3 Ones

I did not know that, do you also protest against IVF?


----------



## Piglet68

Am I reading this right?? There are people trying to make amniocentesis illegal?? "protesting" it b/c of the risk of miscarriage? Unbelievable!!

At the hospital where I had my amnio done, the rate was 1/400. I also had one of their most experienced perinatologists on staff to do it. Frankly, the risk of miscarrying a pregnancy was something I was aware of, and willing to take, rather than spend the next 5 months a basketcase of stress and worry. Who do people think they are to take that choice away from me?

Well, perhaps these same people would like to tell women with mulitple miscarriage histories that it's wrong for them to waste their money on fertility treatments, since the chances of miscarriage are so high. And, while they are at it, they'd better get on board with legislating against smoking, drinking, and eating sushi while pregnant.

I'd like to tell these people where they can go with "protesting against amnio", but I'm a mod and I'm not supposed to behave like that on the boards.


----------



## Changed

8888888888888888


----------



## Changed

99999999999


----------



## Els' 3 Ones

Quote:

Obviously you aren't aware of the other reasons to have an amnio done
Obviously???? really.........obviously????? How could you possibly know what I am or am not aware of? You think I'm uneducated about pregnancy and childbirth

I feel that pro-lifers who choose to risk spontaneous abortion with amino are hypocrites.


----------



## Changed

000000


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

I am really getting







that so many women feel they have to test. I was so unaware! And Els' 3 Ones, no offense but your mw sounds like an idiot for making women test because you had a baby with downs. That is moronic. Isn't the downs test the one that has the highest false positive rate? My obs don't "push" it or really even recommend it because there are so many false positives.

The ONLY amnio I would ever have is a "theraputic amnio" where they draw out some amniotic fluid when you have excessive amounts and it's putting pressure on babe and mom's organs, etc. And even then it would have to be *super* bad for me to agree.

Forgot to add: When I was a kid we were a respite home for kids. Alot of them were high risk kids, but there were some that had "disabilities". A few had downs. It is hard work being a respite because likely as soon as the poor kid gets noncombative or starts to settle down a bit, they are taken to either their foster home or are placed back with their parents. You do get a stipend to buy them some clothes and help with their food, etc and it is alot easier to be a respite than to adopt. We didn't have alot of money or anything and the state was ecstatic that we would do this. Granted, they can show up at your door at 3am with a child to stay with you, but it was great









Ugh...still pissy about not everyone having the consent forms!!!

(OH! Deep breath mamas







)


----------



## sohj

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*
...do you also protest against IVF?

?

Well, are any of the so-called pro-lifers protesting against IVF? After all, it is playing with things that humans aren't supposed to.....


----------



## Els' 3 Ones

No offense taken CMof2. My midwives were actually fantastic - they sort of "knew" Duncan had DS but ran him thru a series of tests, proved his heart was functioning well, made sure he was nursing, triple checked his apgars, etc. They said nothing to me then bcuz he was healthy and they were not positive. That was a tremendous gift - we had a whole week to bond with Duncan rather than bond with down syndrome. KWIM?

The whole reason they have instituted this is liability. They do homebirths (rare in IL) and must protect themselves. There was a case here few years ago with a mw who got sued by the COUNTY for the death a child. NOT by the parents. They had accepted the risk of childbirth and did not want to go to hospital........................

*sigh*


----------



## Changed

11111


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*
The whole reason they have instituted this is liability. They do homebirths (rare in IL) and must protect themselves. There was a case here few years ago with a mw who got sued by the COUNTY for the death a child. NOT by the parents. They had accepted the risk of childbirth and did not want to go to hospital.....

You're kidding?? I do believe I am dreading leaving my little crunchy community even more now. I cannot believe they sued the mw. Isn't it sad the things that have to be done sometimes to cover your butt? I am sorry to your mw...it came across to me wrong...kind of self-serving I suppose.


----------



## Piglet68

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CraftyMommaOf2*
...your mw sounds like an idiot for making women test because you had a baby with downs. That is moronic. Isn't the downs test the one that has the highest false positive rate? My obs don't "push" it or really even recommend it because there are so many false positives.

I think you may be confused.

The triple screen blood test is not a test for DS. It is a _screen_ to identify women at increased risk for DS (or two other conditions described below). It does have a high false positive rate, but that rate goes down as your own risk factors go up.

The consequence of a positive indicator is a recommendation for further testing. Amniocentesis is the definitive test, with an over 95% success rate (the failures being due to laboratory error, or a sampling error, since the DNA itself doesn't lie).

Whether to get an amnio based on a DS indication is up to each family, how they view abortion and how willing or able they are to bring a mentally disabled child into thier lives, possibly until they are old and grey. If someone has no moral issues with abortion, they may feel that terminating a pregnancy, no matter how tragic and sad a loss for them, would be the better choice. OTOH, some people just need to know ahead of time to get themselves ready to deal with it. Still others may need to know simply to avoid the stress of not knowing, and the risk of that having ill effects on mother and baby. It's nobody's choice to make but your own, because nobody else has walked in your shoes.

The benefit of an amnio is that it does a full chromosomal workup, testing for trisomy 13 and trisomy 18 (among others): two very severe mutations that are absolutely lethal, with the child barely able to survive for more than a few hours after birth. I have no trouble saying that I would choose terminating a pregnancy (tragic enough) over having to go 5 months through a pregnancy knowing the baby won't live, and then watching him/her die with my breasts full of milk and my body full of hormones. No thanks.

The triple screen also tests for increased risk of neuro-tube defects like spina bifida. Some cases of this can be treated in utero, and drastically reduce the severity of the symptoms. A C/S is optimal to reduce any damage to the exposed spine through the birth canal.

The other thing it screens for is increased risk of omphaloceles (organs developing outside the body). Again, in this case a vaginal birth could be disastrous, depending on the severity of the case. This condition can almost always be corrected with surgery post-birth, with no lasting effects on the baby.

I totally respect any mama who refuses testing, and would fight for her right to do so. But it does irk me when people imply that testing is completely useless. It depends on your unique situation, and nobody else has the right to decide that but you. It's really playing a game of statistics. They may be largely in your favour, but you also need to be willing to be the one who loses that gamble.


----------



## jengi33

As for the Down's Syndrome issues and whether a parent wants to take on the responsibility of raising that child until they are "old and gray" - It seems that there is a huge range in the level of retardation that people with Down's Syndrome have. Some do require a lot of care, but some (think of Corky on "Life Goes On") do live independently. That's one of those things that you won't know until after, so I don't see that as being a reasonable option.

And for the record, I am completely pro-life and do not believe in IVF.


----------



## Changed

222222222


----------



## guestmama9924

I don't truly believe you have to be an all or nothing advocate. I am pro-choice, but genetic technology really bothers me. I refused all testing in pg, because I was keeping my baby no matter what and don't buy into the "time to prepare" stuff because I felt as though my time in pg was the only time the baby was to experience complete unconditional love ( unknown sex, unknown abnormalities, etc). But I absolutely will help a woman decide what tests might be important to her ( as a doula).

But in







T contrast, how bout this misogynistic pharmacist?refusing to fill birth control, but I wonder how many heart meds and viagra pills he dispensed to keep peoples tickers ticking. hmmm. sorry , maybe I should start a new thread, but it does shine a light on how horrific some of the "pro-lifers" are willing to pick and choose their beliefs and how it seems random to me in terms of ethics/religion, and how women are usually the victims- just like in our current maternity care climate.
Example, an IVF couple I assisted, very anti-abortion, but alas, they have several embryos still laying in a cryo-dish somewhere and have little concern over "not using them".

And I have never seen a check list for tests in all my 8 years of being a doula/cbe/mw assist(Florida).


----------



## Foobar

As to the original post, it was unclear as to the argument of pregnancies being aborted because of "cleft lip/cleft paletes/clubbed feet" etc was real. Look at the source first. Then consider that many other defects ARE associated with these deformaties. It isn't clear from the article that these are used alone as the deciding factor.

A close friend had a trisomy 18 child. She chose no testing and found out far too late to terminate. She would have, her husband wouldn't have. They spent 6 weeks PRAYING FOR THEIR CHILD TO DIE QUICKLY. The signs seen on the u/s that indicated a problem? cleft palete, clubbed feet, crossed digits.... This lead them to do an amnio. Which lead to the T-18 diagnosis.

Matthew died in utero 2 weeks before his due date. I was asked to take photos after the birth. It is terrible to witness this. When a tragedy strikes, one must look into themselves for the answers of how, why and what do I do? (and why me?).

Piglet- A T-13 or T-18 child can live for under 10 years...Most die before birth or shortly after, but there is the rare case of a child with a logner lifespan, but with a horrible quality of living.

On the IVF thing, I went through fertililty treatments and if you think my darling Goo is an abnormal child or abhorrent because we used technology to achieve what others could do without a thought...well...I just don't know what I could say to you... I love her and she is perfect regaqrdless of how we had to conceive her!


----------



## Changed

[2333


----------



## Els' 3 Ones

The point I am trying to get ppl to discuss (thank you to the couple who have) is this:

The crux of the abortion debate centers around the belief that AT CONCEPTION an individual life exists and should be allowed to come out of the host womb unencumbered.

Right?

If we decide this true, thus overturn the right to choose not to be that womb, we then lose the right to use the petri dish as the womb.

Don't you all realize this?


----------



## JessicaS

I am surprised so many would be so quick to toss stones when they have never been in such situations. Or if they have been in such situations that they would judge another for choosing differently than they did.

I don't think this is something that would be so black and white.

Drudge isn't really considered accurate by the journalism community.


----------



## Changed

3333333333


----------



## Piglet68

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
I truly believe that God can stop IVF from being sucessful if he didn't want conception to occur.

Which also suggests that such a god would not be stopped by a tiny birth control pill, but that arguement never seems to work.







:

So full of hypocrisy. And yes, El's 3 Ones, I completely understand your point. But most people won't argue it because either a) they really are hypocrites or b) they will knowingly offend the many mamas here whose babies are the product of fertility treatments. Kind of sad when your "beliefs" are that mean and hurtful to so many people, huh?

jengi33: you are right that there is a huge range in DS disabilities and the severity of the health effects that go with it. however, there is no way to determine where on the spectrum any fetus will fall until the child is much older. for some people, the risk of the worst-case-scenario (severe mental retardation combined with serious physical ailments like heart defects, etc) is too much to take. just as families need to take everyone into consideration when deciding on bringing another child into the world, they also need to consider the effects on everyone (not just nuclear but extended family as well) of accepting the fate of a severly handicapped child. we don't always have the choice, but I believe we should exercise choice when and where we can (which varies for everybody, of course).


----------



## JessicaS

Here is link again as original link isn't working

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/...402_flash4.htm

This is the topic of this thread. Do not debate IVF on this thread. This thread is not about IVF this thread is about abortion under certain circumstances.

Debating IVF really sounds like a jerky thing to do in my opinion but if you want to..start a new thread...but don't say I didn't warn you when you get flamed by the whole TTC board.


----------



## Foobar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*
The point I am trying to get ppl to discuss (thank you to the couple who have) is this:

The crux of the abortion debate centers around the belief that AT CONCEPTION an individual life exists and should be allowed to come out of the host womb unencumbered.

Right?

If we decide this true, thus overturn the right to choose not to be that womb, we then lose the right to use the petri dish as the womb.

Don't you all realize this?


What about identical twins? The twinning happens AFTER conception, 4-8 days.... So do they each have half a soul? Each have half a life?
This is why I cannot accept life begins at conception. To me, life doesn't just begin on moment, it slowly develops and becomes something that we recognize at birth.


----------



## Changed

[


----------



## Changed

44444444


----------



## LavenderMae

This is off topic.

Angela, if god could stop IVF from working then couldn't he stop an abortion from "working". If you truly believe god has a plan for all babies did he just leave out the plan for the ones that he "allows" to be aborted or what? I really want to know how one feels about this from a christian stand point. I always hear christians saying god has a plan for everything, then does he allow abortions and are they part of his plan right? I truly am not trying to be offensive and hope I am not being. Is abortion what was meant for those souls? I have known christians to say that about others who have died very young or tragically, that he (god) had his reasons for taking that soul early etc... This is a question I have really wanted to ask and something I have discussed with non-christians but since we are non-christians we don't know how christians feel about this.


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
I think you may be confused.

The triple screen blood test is not a test for DS. It is a _screen_ to identify women at increased risk for DS (or two other conditions described below). It does have a high false positive rate, but that rate goes down as your own risk factors go up...

I don't think I implied that it was a test for downs. If I did, sorry. I do understand that it's a screening that has a high false positive rate, but I do not understand how the "rate goes down as your own risk factors go up." My point was that I do not think any dr or mw should be able to tell a mother that she *has* to test. KWIM?

DS needs me...be back later


----------



## Changed

4444444


----------



## LavenderMae

Thanks for answering me.


----------



## Piglet68

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CraftyMommaOf2*
...I do not understand how the "rate goes down as your own risk factors go up."

What I mean is, if you are a 43 year old woman with a history of DS in your family, if the test was taken at the right time, etc...then chances are smaller that this is a "false positive". OTOH, if you are young, with no history of DS, not so sure of your real EDD, etc...then chances are much higher that this was a false positive. There ARE real risk factors for DS, and if you have them, a false positive becomes less likely (for you).

Quote:

My point was that I do not think any dr or mw should be able to tell a mother that she *has* to test. KWIM?
Yup, and I completely agree with you!









my~heart: I was not directing my "hurting" comment at you specifically, sorry if it came across that way, I was just addressing that viewpoint in general...

it's just a problem with the hypocrisy inherent in christian doctrine, like believing god has a plan and is omnipotent, but then acting like any attempt on the part of the human to prevent conception, have an abortion, etc is somehow thwarting that plan (as if an omnipotent god couldn't get you PG when you are on the pill, kwim?). I could go on but that is a topic for another forum.

to keep this on topic, we are not talking about abortion for unwanted pregnancies, we are talking about the heart wrenching decisions that parents are faced with when it is confirmed that their unborn child has a host of serious ailments/conditions that are going to have a huge impact on your family. Again, if abortion is anathema to you, then you have no choice but to accept your fate. But for those of us who see abortion as the lesser of two outcomes, we have choices and some of us may or may not choose to exercise those choices, but it's still a choice. It's an extremely personal choice and nobody can make it except the family who will deal with the consequences.


----------



## Foobar

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
Interesting thought.. I personally believe that God has a plan for each child that is to be concieved. I'm 10 weeks pregnant with a baby. Not a clump of tissue( I think that's a term used by the pro-choice movement to devalue life.)but a living being that I am blessed to have as my child. If it's not life until it's breathing air then a full term baby who has not yet been born is not alive? It's too wishy washy for me...

I am pro-choice and I would not refer to a fetus as a clump of tissue. Most pro-choice women I know would not choose an abortion for themselves, but still want others and themselves to have the choice.

I think I didn't explain it well. I don't mean that life starts when the baby is born, I mean that life starts slowly. The heartbeat is part of it, but not the kicker for me. Conception is obviously the needed element. But at which point does my uborn child think? When does she actually have life? 10 weeks? The brain isn't full developed yet. 20 weeks? She couldn't survive out of my womb at that point. Somewhere, in 38 weeks of gestation, a life develops, but I can honestly say that I don't know WHEN in that 38 weeks it develops. Does that make sense?
The whole indentical twin thing really solidifies that life and souls can't start at conception...at least for me....

and no, I don't believe G-d has a plan for each person. That would be too cruel....


----------



## aussiemum

Sorry folks, haven't had a chance to read the last three pages, but just thought I'd point out that I am the 'dipwad' who got hydrocephaly and anencephaly mixed up. Gracious peace! It's been 4 years since I studied all this during my last pregnancy- sorry, can't keep abreast of everything all the time.... & sometimes I mix up words- A 'dipwad'? your words, not mine.......


----------



## simonee

m~h~l~, on the IVF question, I think the crux of the debate and the part that you may have missed, is that usually several eggs are fertilized, and then only a few are implanted (with the other "babies" as you would call them dying). Then, if all implanted embryos (usually 3 or 4) grow, sometimes a "reduction" is proposed to increase the chance of just 1 or 2 fetuses surviving as babies rather than have 4 fetuses dying in utero. So IVF almost always involves what pro-lifers call murder of a baby ~ usually in petri (early embryo), but also in utero (older embryo or fetus).


----------



## mama2j&t

Wow, my first 'activism' post. I am all riled up








As a mother of a 3 month old WONDERFUL boy with cleft lip and palate, I cannot fathom aborting a child for this reason. His cleft is severe, and feeding him was no problem at all (no drowning as previously mentioned). We are lucky to have insurance but if we didn't there are resources available to us. (we live in MI) He had his first surgery on Friday and already he looks so much 'better'. I think the issue is that people expect the perfect baby and god forbid it have a cleft or downs, and won't 'fit in' so let's kill it. I think this is complete discrimination. And how do you explain to a child who was born with a cleft and learns that children were aborted for the same reason. How will that impact them as they grow up? If we are to reduce discrimination, how can we justify abortion based on a child not fitting our standard of what is 'good enough' to be born. I'm not sure this makes sense. I am all mad







This whole idea that a child is better off not being born because of a cleft palate is ludicrous to me. I think it is because the mother dosen't want to deal with it. Good grief, things happen in life. I know. It isn't fun to hear your child will have a birth defect. I think aborting for this reason is one of the most SELFISH things I have heard of.


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama2j&t*
...And how do you explain to a child who was born with a cleft and learns that children were aborted for the same reason. How will that impact them as they grow up? ...

I'm a woman. I know that everyday countless pregnancies end in an abortion because an ultrasound verdict was "it's a girl". How does it impact me? It makes me angry and it makes me very sorrowful.

But my anger is not at the women who have these abortions, it's at the society that devalues all things female. Our society does not value difference. It values sameness. I want to change that. That's where I channel my anger.


----------



## mama2j&t

Quote:

But my anger is not at the women who have these abortions, it's at the society that devalues all things female. Our society does not value difference. It values sameness. I want to change that. That's where I channel my anger.
Yes, I agree. Society creates an environment that makes it seem that abortion is the best answer. I don't hold anger to those who have aborted for any reason. I do think it can be a selfish decision that is passed off as a choice that was 'best for the child'. That is where the cleft issue frustrates me. People should just admit they are doing it because they don't want a child with a defect. And that is largely due to the stigmas of being different. But I am sure if anyone met my Trevor, they would be aghast that anyone would consider aborting him


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

I think aborting for this reason is one of the most SELFISH things I have heard of.
did you read any of the other replies?

many women abort for very *un*selfish reasons, many of which were covered already here.

one very close relative of mine had an abortion when she knew she would be unable to care for her child, and for herself while pregnant, and she didn't want to put the child through a life of foster homes and possible abuse.

simonee ~ the IVF thing is something my dad feels very strongly about. he is very pro-life, and until he explained to me what exactly goes on, i was unaware of why anyone who is pro-life wouldn't support IVF. thank you for posting the information here.


----------



## mama2j&t

Quote:

did you read any of the other replies?
uh, yeah. I said aborting for cleft palate was selfish. I stand by that statement.

I see a difference between aborting for reasons as you stated, unable to care for child, etc. and aborting because the child has a non-terminal abnormality or is a girl.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

a lot of the people here stated very unselfish reasons for wanting to abort a baby with cleft palate.

did you miss those? or just ignore them?


----------



## mama2j&t

I went back because I didn't recall any un-selfish reasons stated for aborting due to cleft palate. The only thing I foudn was this

Quote:

It really is hard to learn to feed a babe with a cleft palate so you don't drown them.
based on my first hand experience this is not true. we have had zero feeding problems and my son's cleft palate is severe.

I never said that there are not unselfish reasons for abortion in general. but I take exception with cleft palate. That is my opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's mind, just stating my opinion based on my experience with a child with cleft lip and palate. I don't know why you seem to be irritated with me.


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama2j&t*
based on my first hand experience this is not true. we have had zero feeding problems and my son's cleft palate is severe.

Actually, that is true. It was my cousin that almost drown from a feeding. It has taken 20 years of surgeries to fix her cleft lip and palate. She still has major eating issues. I'm definitely not saying I would abort because of this, but I can almost understand someone being so scared. A cleft lip only, hell no.

FWIW, I don't think she's irritated with you, just the subject


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

I went back because I didn't recall any un-selfish reasons stated for aborting due to cleft palate. The only thing I foudn was this
so you missed all of the people who said it may take multiple surgeries to correct it?

that other health problems may be associated with it?

that some people absolutely cannot afford health care for their children?

none of those are selfish reasons IMO.

i'm only irritated because it seems to me like you're making a huge generalization without looking at the Big Picture.

who are you to call anyone selfish? just because you have been able to handle it, a lot of people can't, and know they can't.


----------



## mama2j&t

Quote:

Actually, that is true. It was my cousin that almost drown from a feeding. It has taken 20 years of surgeries to fix her cleft lip and palate. She still has major eating issues. I'm definitely not saying I would abort because of this, but I can almost understand someone being so scared.
There are special feeding devices for cleft babies today. I don't know how it was back then, but today it is not as difficult. And yes, it takes many years of surgeries to fix a cleft lip and palate, but the doctors have made major advances. It is AMAZING how well they fix these things today. Yes, it's scary! I am scared for my baby, how he will make it through numerous surgeries, how he will be accepted by society for being different. But how can I reconcile convincing him that he is no different than others in terms of what matters with justifying aborting children just like him?

Quote:

so you missed all of the people who said it may take multiple surgeries to correct it?
So multiple surgeries is a reason to abort?

Quote:

that other health problems may be associated with it?
These other health problems can be determined in utero when cleft is found. I have been referring to cleft palate alone as a reason to abort. sorry if I wasn't clear. However, I have done the research and personally don't think that the health problems and syndromes associated with cleft lip and palate warrant abortion...

Quote:

that some people absolutely cannot afford health care for their children?
Actually cleft lip and palate is one of the conditions that is widely corrected pro-bono ( i think that's what it is called - where they do it for free) our surgeon travels the us and abroad fixing kids and adults. The nurse who cared for our son after his surgery does this as well. I would be very very very surprised to hear of someone who couldn't afford cleft surgeries and did not find a doctor to do it for them anyways.

Quote:

i'm only irritated because it seems to me like you're making a huge generalization without looking at the Big Picture.
The big picture. good grief. I have a child who will be facing surgeries into adolescence, as well as the other challenges that will come with being different. His life is invaluable to me. I hate to see that children with defects such as his are being devalued enough to not be given a chance to be born.

I guess I don't belong in this forum







I don't want to debate all night. I feel very strongly about this. I am not making apologies. I would never pass judgement on someone who made a decision I didn't agree with. however, in this case, I feel that the issues that have been brought up all have pretty good solutions that warrant a chance for a child with a cleft lip and palate to be born.


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mama2j&t*
I feel very strongly about this. I am not making apologies. I would never pass judgement on someone who made a decision I didn't agree with. however, in this case, I feel that the issues that have been brought up all have pretty good solutions that warrant a chance for a child with a cleft lip and palate to be born.

I don't think you should appologize







My cousin is 25 now, so I'm sure things have changed quite a bit. I think I said that I'm sure they've made advances now...not sure...wrote that with ds 2.5 yrs old helping mama. Just don't take it personally mama


----------



## phathui5

"Somewhere, in 38 weeks of gestation, a life develops, but I can honestly say that I don't know WHEN in that 38 weeks it develops. Does that make sense?"

But wouldn't it make more sense to err on the side of caution and go, since we aren't sure when your life starts, we aren't going to risk ending it.

"one very close relative of mine had an abortion when she knew she would be unable to care for her child, and for herself while pregnant, and she didn't want to put the child through a life of foster homes and possible abuse."

She could have kept the baby out of foster care by putting it up for open adoption.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

She could have kept the baby out of foster care by putting it up for open adoption.
when there are so many other babies, children, and adolescents waiting to be adopted.

come on.

look at the statistics.

i really wish that more people would stop being so philosophically pro-adoption and actually go out and start adopting the kids who need it.

this thread has already visited that avenue though.


----------



## Changed

77777


----------



## Delta

I could only get through page 2 of this post because the ridiculousness was overwhelming.

I was born with a bilateral cleft lip and palate, and it suppose it would be called 'severe.'

Good thing they didn't have prenatal testing to see those things back in 76, I guess. I mean, it was such a pain to feed me and everything. Maybe they should have gotten rid of me instead.









Let me tell you I've been through 9 surgeries and would rather have gone through them, rather than have been aborted, in case you were wondering.


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
But, if a woman is pregnant and wants to put her child up for adoption at birth, it's very easy to find a couple to adopt that baby. [/b]

Well, yes - as long as the baby is perfectly healthy. What if he/she is not?



*Quote:*

I see aborting as a horrible thing all around but add in the fact that that life was ended because the child was disabled.... Then say that it's mercy? Not buying it! If you're going to say it's a matter of mercy or pity, be clear that it's for mom.
That's not at all clear. If the other option is for a child with a disability that makes him/her virtually unadoptable to grow up with a mother who is incapable of handling the responsibility of taking care of a disabled child and perhaps vents her frustration on the child then, IMO, it might just be more merciful for the future child to terminate the pregnancy rather than subject that child to a lifetime of abuse.



*Quote:*

Babies forget surgeries... state and federal goverment programs help with medical expenses if you truly can't afford it.
Unless you're in the very large middle class that doesn't qualify for aid and struggles to get by.



*Quote:*

There are plenty of women posting to this thread that LIVE the big picture. We don't swallow the handfuls of bullshit so easily anymore...

With all due respect, I don't think you've really even smelled the "bullshit."


----------



## Changed

[


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
People constantly give the reasons why a mother may not be able to handle a child with a disability and how it's her right and perfectly ok to abort it. Ever stop to think that the perfectly normal healthy child that another mother has could be in an accident any day of their life and become every bit as disabled and stressful? That's something to consider before ANY woman gets pregnant! If you can't be a mother to your child through whatever comes..... It happens everyday. There's nothing respectful about your last comment. You have no idea.

It wasn't meant to be disrespectful - I was simply using your terminology. My point with that last comment is that you seem to have a very black/white perspective here. It appears that you've made up your mind about one issue and don't fully consider the implications.

FWIW, I don't think it's "perfectly okay" to abort a child with a disability. I don't think abortion is ever really "okay" as in fully acceptable. However, what's the better, *realistic* option in the scenario I've outlined?

It's certainly true that any perfectly healthy child can become disabled after birth, but it's not exactly relevant here. The circumstances are not sufficiently comparable as there you are dealing with possibilities, not certainties. If a woman *knows* that her child will be born severely disabled, then she is in the best position to evaluate whether or not a) the disability is one that she can handle and b) her child will have any measure of quality to his/her life (as balanced with suffering).

I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I think it's safe to say that many women would better be able to handle a disability incurred once they had already lived with and known and loved their child as a healthy person. For some women it would still be too overwhelming but, at that point, they are already committed...


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
If you can't be a mother to your child through whatever comes..... [/b]

Then... what? Then you shouldn't become a mother? I would submit to you that one never knows what s/he can truly handle until s/he is actually confronted with it.


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

"What I mean is, if you are a 43 year old woman with a history of DS in your family, if the test was taken at the right time, etc...then chances are smaller that this is a "false positive". OTOH, if you are young, with no history of DS, not so sure of your real EDD, etc...then chances are much higher that this was a false positive. There ARE real risk factors for DS, and if you have them, a false positive becomes less likely (for you)."

Thanks Piglet68! Makes total sense


----------



## village idiot

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Delta*

Good thing they didn't have prenatal testing to see those things back in 76, I guess. I mean, it was such a pain to feed me and everything.

ITA. I was born in 1968 with a cleft palate and I frequently had milk coming out of my nose when my mom tried to feed me. I had one surgery.

I had my second dd in 1990. She was born with a more pronounced cleft palate than I was. I had an US with her but it did not show any abnormalities. Even if it had, the thought of aborting did not cross my mind. I went through HELL with her. She has had 4 surgeries and I have basically raised her single handedly. I would do it all over again and I am sure that she is glad to be here even after all she has been through.

I had an US in 2002 when pregnant with my third dd and was told that everything looked ok but they couldn't tell if she had a cleft palate. Turns out she didn't.

I never knew an US could detect a cleft palate. What kind of US/test reveals a cleft palate while in utero? Even with my history of cleft palate, I was not offered a test that could detect a cleft palate for my third dd.

I am pro choice but couldn't have an abortion myself, especially not for a cleft palate baby. Not trying to judge anyone else. It's just about me.


----------



## Changed

d


----------



## Greaseball

I've never known anyone with a deformity or disability who wished that s/he had never been born.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

If a woman decided to get pregnant( or have sex for that matter) she should be prepared for the possibility of getting a child who has it's own personality and it's own issues.
so then nobody should ever have sex with their partner if they aren't willing to care for a baby with a disability?


----------



## Changed

h


----------



## CraftyMommaOf2

I do agree that if you're going to have sex with someone then you need to be prepared for whatever could come of it...big advocate of safe sex


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
That's exactly my point! How can someone abort on the basis that she will not be able to care for that child if that is true?[/b]

Discovering your child has a severe disability while he/she is still gestating *is* being confronted with it. (At least, IMO). It's no longer hypothetical at that point... it's the point where a woman starts truly self-evaluating.


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CraftyMommaOf2*
I do agree that if you're going to have sex with someone then you need to be prepared for whatever could come of it...big advocate of safe sex









I agree with this, as well. But choice to have sex isn't always a factor in pregnancy. In addition, things can happen that one cannot possibly fathom. I know that I didn't know about even half of the things that could possibly go wrong in pregnancy until well after ds was - and it's not because I didn't research.


----------



## Changed

[


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
If a woman gets pregnant with a "defective" child and aborts because she can't handle it, do you think it's ok for her to try again hoping for something better?[/b]

I don't know if I think it's necessarily "okay." My comfort with that situation is dependent upon the level of risk of a severe disability. I don't believe in controlling the reproduction of other people, though, so while I may not be comfortable with another person's choice, I wouldn't want to legislate that choice away.

Quote:

I happen to have a friend who has a balanced traslocation (thus causing her to pass a genetic defect onto her children). Now she knew that before she ever had children. She has 3 children 2 with the defect and one without. Would you view your ability to deal with a disabled child differently if you knew that you would probably have one or none? Would you never have chilren if you couldn't have a normal child? Isn't motherhood supposed to be more unconditional that that?
Personally, if I knew I couldn't have a non-disabled child or that the risk of having a severely disabled child was very high, I would not conceive. IMO, it's irresponsible to purposely conceive children you know have a high risk of being severely disabled (particularly if that disability would bring about a life full of pain). Beyond that, I am almost absolutely certain that I am incapable of caring for a child that is severely disabled at birth - or, at least, incapable of being a good, effective mother to that child. While I loved my ds from the beginning, it took me quite awhile to warm to the idea of being a mother. The fact that he was healthy and responsive had much to do with my warming to him, I'm convinced. I'm sure you will see that as a shortcoming, but it's my reality. But I'm not everyone else... My choice is not for everyone else. I can't presume to understand your friend's choice, but it's her right to make it. Apparently she is aware of what she can handle and has a different idea about responsibility in conception than I do.


----------



## aussiemum

My hearts light, I think that motherhood means lots of different things to different people.... I don't think there is any one way to be a good mother.

Quote:

Would you never have chilren if you couldn't have a normal child?
Some folks choose exactly that, & there is nothing wrong with making that decision for yourself & your relationship.

my hearts light, it sounds like you are comfortable & at peace with your daughter's disability. I am sure you have struggled, & questioned, & worked very hard to give your children the best you can. However, & I am trying to go gently here, it seems to me that your premise behind your argument is that 'If I did it & coped with whatever difficulties have come my way, then so can everyone else if they just try.' I think that is too big an ask of every possible person who finds out they are expecting a baby with disabilities. I can think of one recent situation here in Aus where the mother did not cope with her child's severe disability very well.... no, make that two cases in the last year that I can think of. If you want the specifics you can do a search in the Sydney Morning Herald or the Australian, or PM me & I'll let you in on the knowledge. I'm not comfortable putting it here in this particular thread- it's ....... upsetting.


----------



## Changed

[


----------



## grnbn76

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*

IMO, it's irresponsible to purposely conceive children you know have a high risk of being severely disabled (particularly if that disability would bring about a life full of pain). .

I just have to ask this question...
What is the guideline for "high risk of being severely disabled" though? Who defines high enough risk? Who defines severely enough disabled? Calling it irresponsible is a slippery slope, I think. Is it irresponsible for a woman over 35 to conceive? For a woman who already has a child with a birth defect? For a woman who has a severely disabled sibling? All of these things drastically increase your risk of having a disabled child.
You might call me irresponsible...I have a brother who has mental disabilities and physical delays (he's 22 chronologically, and about 8 in mental ability and about 12 in physical ability). He was born 3 months premature and was (for about 10 years after his birth) the smallest baby to ever survive in our state. Because he is still (yes, still, even at 22) undiagnosed (meaning they've never found an actual problem, and they have no idea what could have caused his problems), I am at a MUCH higher risk for having a child exactly like him. Am I irresponsible for conceiving not once, but 4 times? I took that risk, am I irresponsible? And what on earth would the world be missing out on if not for my children?

As for a "life full of pain"...don't we all have one? Aren't we all faced with pain on a daily basis? If our goal is avoidance of pain, then none of us should be having children at all, as this is a world full of pain and suffering of some sort.


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grnbn76*
I just have to ask this question...
What is the guideline for "high risk of being severely disabled" though? Who defines high enough risk?[/b]

I really think it's an individual determination as to what would be considered high. Obviously, 99% is quite high. I would consider 50% high... for another person, 50% might be acceptable.











*Quote:*

Who defines severely enough disabled? Calling it irresponsible is a slippery slope, I think.
Again, individual determination. It's in no way a "slippery slope" because it's not one party seeking to make the determination for another... there is nowhere for the slope to go, really.



*Quote:*

You might call me irresponsible...I have a brother who has mental disabilities and physical delays (he's 22 chronologically, and about 8 in mental ability and about 12 in physical ability). He was born 3 months premature and was (for about 10 years after his birth) the smallest baby to ever survive in our state. Because he is still (yes, still, even at 22) undiagnosed (meaning they've never found an actual problem, and they have no idea what could have caused his problems), I am at a MUCH higher risk for having a child exactly like him. Am I irresponsible for conceiving not once, but 4 times? I took that risk, am I irresponsible? And what on earth would the world be missing out on if not for my children?
If you were me, I would consider you irresponsible. But because you're you, and you're willing to take that risk and (I assume) to handle any outcome, then you're not irresponsible. (Unless, of course, you're bringing children into the world who are going to have nothing but pain - basically no quality of life. In that case, I would feel pretty comfortable calling you irresponsible even if you weren't me. Judgmental, yes. It's where my "reason" runs out and I slip into the realm of pure emotion).



*Quote:*

As for a "life full of pain"...don't we all have one? Aren't we all faced with pain on a daily basis? If our goal is avoidance of pain, then none of us should be having children at all, as this is a world full of pain and suffering of some sort.

If that's your perspective, I suppose. My perspective is that yes, there is pain in life, but it's generally overshadowed by the more pleasurable - or at least neutral - parts of life. When I refer to a life full of pain, I'm speaking of cases where children are born into pain and will have little or nothing else in their (probably short) lives.


----------



## grnbn76

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
I can't speak for everyone, of course, but I think it's safe to say that many women would better be able to handle a disability incurred once they had already lived with and known and loved their child as a healthy person. For some women it would still be too overwhelming but, at that point, they are already committed...

Okay, if we go along with the logic that a disability is easier to deal with once the child is born, what about disabilities that occur AT birth? Perfectly normal pregnancy, birth injury (brain bleed, oxygen deprivation) that causes a disability. Can the mother deal with it, because it's too late to do anything about it? Or can the mother not deal with it, because she hasn't had a chance to be "already committed"?


----------



## aussiemum

Yeah, Angela, I didn't think some of the mums on this thread really needed a whole bunch of horrible details thrown at them.







But I do think it is worth considering that some parents can't handle what life throws at them, & some children do suffer for it...... disabled or not, if you think about it....


----------



## Changed

j


----------



## grnbn76

DragonflyIf you were me said:


> First of all, other than anencephaly, I can't imagine a disability that would offer absolutely no quality of life.
> Secondly, I agreed to handle any outcome when I decided to conceive my children. I did not try to conceive a little girl with red hair and green eyes and freckles, who is as profoundly gifted as my 7yo, who has the personality and vivaciousness of my 3 1/2 yo, and the budding musical abilities of my 19mo. I tried to conceive a BABY. A child. Period. And in doing that, I chose to accept the risks that go along with having a child...whether those risks are. Whether I risked a genetic disorder, a birth injury, a preterm birth, or one of a billion things that could go wrong when you grow a child.
> 
> To call my choice to have children irresponsible is disgusting to me. My perfectly healthy, happy, wonderful children "beat the odds". They show no signs whatsoever of any disability. It saddens me that faced with the same risks, you would have chosen not to bring these fabulous, brilliant children into the world. You would have missed out on so much...the benefits so very much outweigh the risks that now seem so tiny.
> 
> Then again, as other posters have said, you never know what you can handle until you live it. I can't know right now whether or not this baby will be like my brother. What I can know is that he is my child. I do not love my children because they are perfect. I love them because they are my children. Period.


----------



## aussiemum

Angela, I guess I'm just not willing to make a decision for anyone else about whether or not they should terminate a pregnancy. I know what I have done/ do in my life, & it works for me & not anyone else...

Re: children suffering, regardless of circumstances. This is so tough. So many times in the past society has been willing to take children out of situations that the state deems 'unfit' only to discover that we inadvertently made things worse. Specifically, I'm thinking of the Stolen Generations here in Aus ('Rabbit Proof Fence' is a good flick about it- you'll cry) ; I know a similar thing happened in canada, & prob the US as well. I'm thinking of the little 5 year old girl in Maine who was murdered by her foster parent (saw it on your Frontline program). I'm thinking of the little Pommie orphans, shipped out to Australia- some against their will- & the abuses that some of them suffered.... And no, I don't have any answers, or really any suggestions...... We all see stuff on the streets that makes us cringe, but how are we to know that some kind of intervention won't make it worse?? Because sometimes it does make it worse.....


----------



## Dragonfly

*Quote:*

First of all, other than anencephaly, I can't imagine a disability that would offer absolutely no quality of life.
I might put Tay-Sachs in that category, as well.



*Quote:*

To call my choice to have children irresponsible is disgusting to me. My perfectly healthy, happy, wonderful children "beat the odds". They show no signs whatsoever of any disability. It saddens me that faced with the same risks, you would have chosen not to bring these fabulous, brilliant children into the world. You would have missed out on so much...the benefits so very much outweigh the risks that now seem so tiny.
I'm not calling your choice to have children irresponsible. If you've gotten that impression, then you are reading from a place where you've pre-judged my words and are not perceiving them as they were meant to be perceived.

It seems that what we have here is people projecting their experiences onto other people and suggesting that there should be some sort of universal feeling amongst all mothers. It's obviously not the case. Some people are more comfortable with unknowns and risks than are others. My point is that no one should be making those decisions for anyone else when it comes to child-bearing.


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *grnbn76*
Okay, if we go along with the logic that a disability is easier to deal with once the child is born, what about disabilities that occur AT birth? Perfectly normal pregnancy, birth injury (brain bleed, oxygen deprivation) that causes a disability. Can the mother deal with it, because it's too late to do anything about it? Or can the mother not deal with it, because she hasn't had a chance to be "already committed"?

I really think you're missing my point here. I can't answer those questions for anyone else. I can only answer them for myself. My point is that *there is not a level of ability and tolerance and risk acceptance that is universally comfortable for everyone*.


----------



## Aura_Kitten

Quote:

*It seems that what we have here is people projecting their experiences onto other people and suggesting that there should be some sort of universal feeling amongst all mothers. It's obviously not the case. Some people are more comfortable with unknowns and risks than are others. My point is that no one should be making those decisions for anyone else when it comes to child-bearing.*










ITA. _*no one should be making those decisions for anyone else when it comes to child-bearing.*_


----------



## Els' 3 Ones

Slippery slope?

Listen, we are on the slippery slope. The only protection we have left is choice. If we lose that...................

Consider this:

The courts are legislating childbirth already.

We have been hearing about these forced c-sections lately, but there is a lot more than that.

We've had discussions about deaf parents being "allowed" to breed............poor ppl or drug addicts being "allowed" to breed.

We've had discussions about women being forced to have in-utero surgery. Again, do you wish that to be *forced* upon you? IMO, part of accepting what is going to happen with _any_ pregnancy is being able to accept that this child might not survive. Or being able to accept them as they are - not monkeying around (at great risk to their/your life) with in-utero surgery. Perhaps nature intended for some children not to make it long out of childbirth. Shouldn't I be allowed to accept that?

I've personally spoke of my probable inability to breed w/o having genetic testing done................do you actually think anyone would accept me if I got pg again and did not want blood/amnio done? I should be forced to have an amino and risk a spontaneous abortion?

Get your head out of the sand - by taking away our rights to decide what is best for us you take away your rights to decide what is best for you, and your children.

I don't have to like or agree with your choices for your family. I do have to fight for your right to make them so I can continue in my right to make them.

I've repeatedly brought up IVF (to be told it's off topic, I don't agree)................the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of women who have been able to give birth should be told they no longer have that right? The children they have born should not have been?

As genetics go farther along we are going to be able to determine much, much more about embyoes. Do we want to continue along this current path of having the gov't/courts deciding what we should do? I can guarantee you that the future would contain regulations on our ability to breed if we have "defective" genes.................................


----------



## lab

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*

It seems that what we have here is people projecting their experiences onto other people and suggesting that there should be some sort of universal feeling amongst all mothers. It's obviously not the case. Some people are more comfortable with unknowns and risks than are others. My point is that no one should be making those decisions for anyone else when it comes to child-bearing.

I copied this because I want everyone to re-read it. This is a great point. However you feel about ANY issue, it's how YOU feel.

Well said Dragonfly!


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*
I've repeatedly brought up IVF (to be told it's off topic, I don't agree)................the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of women who have been able to give birth should be told they know longer have that right? The children they have born should not have been?[/b]









I wish this topic wasn't being ignored, Els. It's very much on point and would make for a worthwhile (if not potentially volatile) discussion.


----------



## Jane

I fully support a woman's right to an abortion without having a "good" reason. I have my reasons why and when it would be okay for me to abort my child, but I wouldn't expect anyone else to follow them or agree with them.
If I think it's okay for no reason at all, how could I possibly think it's wrong to do it for cleft lip?
Any time someone gives a reason, there's always going to be someone who supports abortion but doesn't support it for that reason.
I wish there were more education. I think that mothers in the future will be better equipped to make decisions about disabilities because of mainstreaming in the schools. My neices all know kids with Down Syndrome and CMV, for instance. I did not have that expectation of normality and I think I'm the worst for it.


----------



## Piglet68

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
I truly believe that MOST mother who choose not to could have handled it, just as I did. They just choose not to. What I want everyone, the whole world of women to understand is that while you mat see it as an extreme disability that you could never handle, it's not always so.


I think this post, and alot of the other posts, are completely missing the point.

IF, within the scheme of your own personal moral and ethical beliefs, abortion is NOT equivalent to murder, etc...then you HAVE a choice as to whether or not you want to accept responsibility for it. It's not even about whether or not you could "cope" with such a child, or think you could cope. *It's whether you want to make the choice to put that burden upon yourself in the first place.*

CONSIDER THIS: let's say that you had the option, *before conception* to have a disabled child or a normal child. *Which would you choose?* I cannot imagine anybody here saying they would choose the disabled child, _if that choice did not involve anything morally objectionable to them._

People who choose to abort under these circumstances do so, not necessarily because they don't think they can cope, but because they feel they have the opportunity to _prevent the situation altogether_. An opportunity that does not compromise THEIR personal ethics.

The only reason someone like my-hearts-light can talk about how she handled the full load she was given, is because within the context of her own personal morals and ethics SHE HAD NO CHOICE (sorry to point you out as the example, myheart, but you have eloquently posted on the challenges you have faced). Her advice would be welcome, supportive, and invaluable to anyone else faced with that situation. But it's not fair to say that just because one person has no choice, that nobody else should have one either.

Now, one more thing to consider.... A few people have mentioned what if your child were born with an unexpected defect, or what if the defect/condition wasn't diagnosed until later, or what if they were in some sort of accident that crippled them for life....

This is making the assumption that every woman out there treats a 16 week old fetus the same way as a born child. That's not necessarily the case. I know that, as a mother of a child, I can and would find the resources to cope with anything that befell her. If my DD was in an accident that turned her into a vegetable, I would love and care for her for life. Not just because she is already a part of my life, an interactive part of this family, but also because killing a child is not part of my moral context (there are societies where babies are killed if they have defects...this has happened for millenia. I sure don't agree with it, but it would be rather arrogant of me to put my own values on that of another culture). OTOH, if I knew when I was 6 months PG with her that she would be a vegetable for life, I would terminate the PG. I don't see abortion in that context as the moral equivalent of killing a child (I know some do, but the important point is, I don't). So given the ability to save myself all that stress, I would take advantage of it. *That doesn't make me any less capable of facing a disability should it occur unexpectedly.*

ITA with Dragonfly's quoted post: too many people here are projecting their own situations, beliefs, and experiences on to everybody else. "I did it so why don't you?"...well, some people don't want to face such a challenge if they can prevent it. And whether or not you can prevent it depends on your own personal moral and ethical view of Life, the Universe, and Everything Else. Thus, black and white judgements are, IMO, just wrong.


----------



## sohj

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
I think this post, and alot of the other posts, are completely missing the point. [...] it depends on your own personal moral and ethical view of Life, the Universe, and Everything Else. Thus, black and white judgements are, IMO, just wrong.

Thank you.


----------



## Changed

[


----------



## pugmadmama

Quote:


Originally Posted by *my~hearts~light*
...Yes we all know that the VAST majority of women here are pro choice. There are a few of us however who are pro life, pro baby. ....

I'm pro-choice, pro-life and pro-baby. I suspect it would be *a lot* easier to convince people that you were sincere about correctly misinformation about differently-abled people (as opposed to just working towards making abortion illegal) if you were not continually parroting misinformation about what being pro-choice means.

Being pro-choice does *not* mean you are inherently anti-life, anti-baby; to keep insisting that it does leads me to believe you are not bothering to read the many posts in this thread that have clarified that, over and over.


----------



## annakiss

Well, I haven't read the whole thread... but my son was born with a severe complete cleft lip & palate. And I'm pro-choice. And I didn't have any tests during pregnancy that would have told me of his abnormality. And I wouldn't have aborted if I had. And I'm planning a future pregnancy and will be doing no tests (so far, I'm convinced of this, later I know that it may occur to me to have the 3D ultrasound). And my son was not planned, but wanted. I don't know what other people should do. I'm a little disgusted at the aborting for purely cosmetic reasons. But I'm in no place to say what anyone should do. I also harbor some anger at the world for my son's defect, and some guilt. It's unfair. But I don't always feel that way, just at my darkest moments. But never in a million years have I considered not having had him had I known.


----------



## Changed

h


----------



## annakiss

On second thought, maybe I would have considered not having him. But because I didn't want to be faced with that choice, I didn't do any testing. I'm not sure if it's my moral compass, or what, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of forcing myself into that situation. Sometimes I wonder though... if it weren't for all our technology - which I don't often consciously appreciate for as much as I use it - my son would not have lived. As it is, he's sleeping upstairs in his bed.

All the thoughts now spinning in my head as a result of this thread are making me nauseous.

I did also agree with what Piglet said.


----------



## Jane

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
I'm not sure if it's my moral compass, or what, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of forcing myself into that situation.

That's a wonderful way to express that. I think that could be a very persuasive opinion, that "I do not want to have the test because then I would have to choose." On the days that are tough, I wouldn't have to think "I could've avoided this" and on the days that are good, I wouldn't think "I considered missing this entirely"


----------



## Els' 3 Ones

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annakiss*
Well, I haven't read the whole thread... but my son was born with a severe complete cleft lip & palate. And I'm pro-choice. And I didn't have any tests during pregnancy that would have told me of his abnormality. And I wouldn't have aborted if I had. And I'm planning a future pregnancy and will be doing no tests (so far, I'm convinced of this, later I know that it may occur to me to have the 3D ultrasound). And my son was not planned, but wanted. I don't know what other people should do. I'm a little disgusted at the aborting for purely cosmetic reasons. But I'm in no place to say what anyone should do. I also harbor some anger at the world for my son's defect, and some guilt. It's unfair. But I don't always feel that way, just at my darkest moments. But never in a million years have I considered not having had him had I known.


You spoke so well. Thank you. I *do* know exactly how you feel.

I had no tests with any of my 3. Being over 35 when I delivered #1, it was greatly encouraged by the mainstream birthing community.

As I expressed b4, numerous times, I wonder if you will be able to refuse and still get support from an OB/MW..........................especially bcuz you, like me, have a previous history. I hope you will have that right.


----------



## Dragonfly

Thank you for such an eloquent post, Piglet.









I really didn't like the road that this thread was traveling but didn't know how to stop the snowball....


----------



## annakiss

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Els' 3 Ones*
As I expressed b4, numerous times, I wonder if you will be able to refuse and still get support from an OB/MW..........................especially bcuz you, like me, have a previous history. I hope you will have that right.

I never really thought of that. My son's abnormality is so common and I've taken all the preconception steps any OB/MW would encourage, that I don't think that would be an issue for us. I can't imagine being forced to though. I know that these things are being done all over, and it disgusts me. Even without a court order, the pressure is significant enough... geesh! My mom is my midwife, so for our future, there will be no question about my wishes.

Since birthing my son, I've my wishes to not interfere with pregnancy have grown and I've decided against all tests (last time I had a gestational diabetes test) and even decided to not use a doppler with my next pregnancy at all.


----------

