Prenatal Down's syndrome testing

[abaya]

So I was in my Icelandic class the other day, and I heard from a Polish woman in my class that she was pregnant. In Iceland, apparently you cannot see a doctor about your pregnancy until you are 12 weeks along (the end of the first trimester, basically), which I find weird... but even more weird, they *require* you to get prenatal testing at that point, to determine if the child may have Down's syndrome. The Polish women felt very uncomfortable about this, as did I (I have never really heard much about this testing, and always thought it was optional, at least in the US).

I've been doing some reading about it since then, and discussing it with ktspktsp. My gut feeling is that it's unethical. I am pro-choice, but I find the idea of getting an abortion due to a non-fatal "imperfection" in your child to be just way off. It sets a precedent that people with Down's syndrome do not contribute anything to society, because within a generation or two (if, as they say, 90% of women who find out their child has Down's syndrome, do abort), there will no longer be anyone with Down's syndrome. One has to wonder what the effect on human society will be.

People also abort for other non-fatal issues discovered in testing, such as Klinefelter's syndrome (smaller testicles, limited language learning ability) and even cleft palates. I mean... cleft palates! Wow. The whole thing just smacks of eugenics to me. At what point does it become okay to abort for whatever reasons one feels like? (Including gender, e.g. in China--which I also find unethical.) Where does one draw the line?

So, is it good (ethical--in a broad, social sense, not a personal one) to basically stop producing an entire subpopulation of human beings? Of course, we are not talking about exterminating those who are already living, thank goodness, but still... eventually they will die out, and if no more are being born, then voila... no more people with Down's syndrome, ever again. There are many people who wouldn't mind that happening, I suppose. I do have a problem with it. A bit too distopian for me. I have volunteered with disabled people, and overall I see them as having a valid role in society. Maybe not everyone agrees with me.

I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.

[Martian]

1) Devil's advocate response

The human genetic pool has been degrading for centuries now. Natural selection is no longer a function of human physiology. An individual with Down's Syndrome or Asperger's (or yes, even a cleft palate) is less well suited to survival than a physically healthy specimen; should that individual survive to reproduce, they're are effectively weakening the human genome.

Note that this argument also applies to me, as a sufferer of Crohn's Disease.

2) Emotional response

It is, on the other hand, a slippery slope. For one, as you note, these individuals can certainly be productive and contribute to the welfare of the society they live in. Quite apart from that, how far of a stretch is it from cleft palate to other facial deformity, to club foot, to wrong eye shape? What if someone develops a way to test for hair colour? Would anyone seriously consider aborting a child for being blonde?

Don't answer that.

I don't know. I'm kind of conflicted on this. It is the parents' (not mother's, unless the father is not taking an active role) right to choose. That does beg the question however, of what informs that choice, and what is a valid reason for making it.

I don't have an answer for that.

[stevie667]

I agree with Martians devils advocate response. My own personal opinion is that if you abort a child, then have another, the resulting child will still be (in soul if you will) the same child.

Is artifical selection something good? yes, but only if you keep it at serious conditions, not minor trivialities.

I'm not a fan of enforced testing though, that i don't like.

[The_Jazz]

As a parent, I would rather know what I'm getting into. I'm sorry, but it's as simple as that. If I decide I am not ready to raise a special-needs child, I would rather make an informed decision.

[Borla]

I know personally of only two people who had that screening that were told it was likely their child would have Down's Syndrome.

One of them decided to go ahead and continue the pregnancy, and now has a seven year old boy who definitely does NOT have Down's Syndrome. The other is now about five months pregnant, and after a second screening was told she almost certainly has a healthy baby inside. But the 1-2 weeks in between the first and second screenings she was terrified and stressed to the max because she said she would never have an abortion, and her husband was trying to talk her into terminating it because of the Down's Syndrome diagnosis.

[tecoyah]

For millions of years Humankind has been using a form of this via mate selection. What we are seeing now seems to me to be an extension of this tendency through technology, and I see technology as a form of evolution in the species. That said, I also find the elimination of "differences" in the species to be a shortsighted and possibly damaging decision by society as a whole.
We simply cannot know what we are eliminating from the genetic pool when we systematically destroy a population through manipulation of reproduction. I personally, would not go for in vitro testing....hell, I didn't even know the sex of three of my four children till they popped out.

[Hektore]

Are those reasons really any more grotesque than:

"I don't wanna!"
"I can't afford it."
"My SO doesn't want it."
"The time just isn't right." ?

Let's face it, you really don't even need a reason at all. That's what freedom of choice is all about.

The devil's advocate scenario doesn't really work, saying what is or is not weaking the genepool requires knowledge of what genes will be best to have in the future. Quite honestly, I don't think you have the information, nor does anyone else. The only reasonable preservation strategy is to protect diversity in the genepool, because once everyone is the same it only takes one thing to kill us all.

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

As a parent, I would rather know what I'm getting into. I'm sorry, but it's as simple as that. If I decide I am not ready to raise a special-needs child, I would rather make an informed decision.

This is pretty much how me and the wife looked at it. While I'm pro-choice and she's pro-life, she would seriously have had to think long and hard if the tests came back positive.

I don't think it's a question of whether or not the child has a right or not, it's more about whether the child is going to be able to have a decent life or not once it's here. Part of having that decent life is making sure the parents are 100% informed and dedicated to the needs of a special needs child. Not everyone can handle or is willing to handle such a great responsibility. When that is the case, it's better to abort IMO.

[ShaniFaye]

Back when I was preggie with Manda (pre-internet) I refused the test, I was going to love my child no matter what and I didnt want to be forced to make a decision I didnt want to have to make. There are a blue billion other things besides downs that could have been wrong with her, I saw no point in ruling out just that one thing.

[Jinn]

I'd abort like there was no tomorrow.

I'm sorry, but that was how I really felt when I read the thread.

I was watching Animal Cops: Houston the other day, and there was a baby dog born in a house where the owners weren't really taking care of the mom or the babies. There was one who was infested with maggots and had part of his skin eaten away. They decided to put it down, becuase even if they could save it (unlikely), they said that they had to think of the quality of life that that dog would have. Partially blind and with permanent damage to it's skin and fur, it wouldn't have led a happy existence.

Maybe it's primitive and crude, but that's how I'd feel about a couple cells in a woman's vagina, if I knew that it wouldn't be born into a decent quality of life.

[abaya]

All interesting responses so far... more diverse than I expected, which is cool.

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I don't think it's a question of whether or not the child has a right or not, it's more about whether the child is going to be able to have a decent life or not once it's here. Part of having that decent life is making sure the parents are 100% informed and dedicated to the needs of a special needs child. Not everyone can handle or is willing to handle such a great responsibility. When that is the case, it's better to abort IMO.

Thing is, I'm not talking about whether or not the child has a right to life, or whether their lives will be decent, etc. I mean, those are the arguments used to justify both pro-life and pro-choice.

What I am asking about is the bigger picture: the ethics of such a decision. As I said, I am pro-choice, and I truly believe the choice of whether or not to have a child, period, is based on personal morality, what one believes is right or wrong for oneself. The child you are aborting is random, you have no idea what it would turn out as, and therefore it is not necessarily affecting society or getting rid of subpopulations, etc.

But to me, the decision about whether or not to have a *less-than-perfect (whatever "perfect" means) child*, is another question altogether... one of what kind of society we want to have, what is good and right to do (e.g. getting rid of a subpopulation, over time) for the betterment of society.

I can see the devil's advocate argument, that doing this eliminates faulty genes from the pool in the "natural selection" sense... but hell, other groups of people have tried to use this as a reason in the past, and it was called eugenics, and usually is associated with what the Nazis tried to do (yes, I'm going there) by eliminating various "imperfect" subpopulations. Where does one stop? I mean... cleft palate?! What the hell?

[Lasereth]

I would get it aborted. I don't even find it unethical. Having a child with DS would alter a couple's life for the worse, there's no getting around it. Sure you may love the child but in the end if you can choose to have a healthy kid or having a kid who will live out a miserable existence and significantly lower the quality of life of everyone around him it's a simple choice.

[abaya]

Does anyone here have a kid with Down's, or a sibling or other relative?... I do think that will bring in another perspective on the "miserable, low-quality of life" thing...

[ShaniFaye]

Originally Posted by Lasereth

I would get it aborted. I don't even find it unethical. Having a child with DS would alter a couple's life for the worse, there's no getting around it. Sure you may love the child but in the end if you can choose to have a healthy kid or having a kid who will live out a miserable existence and significantly lower the quality of life of everyone around him it's a simple choice.

miserable existence?

I have several downs cousins and having grown up around them "miserable existence" is the last label I would put on them

[abaya]

Originally Posted by stevie667

Is artifical selection something good? yes, but only if you keep it at serious conditions, not minor trivialities.

This is the issue, however. Who decides what "serious conditions" are, vs. "minor trivialities?"... I mean, if the condition is non-fatal, as Down's syndrome and cleft palates are...how does one decide what is serious enough to warrant an abortion?

Hell, in China, simply being female is warranted enough of a "serious condition" to abort... with rather dire consequences to their demographics (too many males). How does one decide what is a valuable or non-valuable subpopulation?

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

miserable existence?

I have several downs cousins and having grown up around them "miserable existence" is the last label I would put on them

Thanks, Shani... you beat me to it, lol. But yeah, that is the insight I was looking for... for those who see it as a "miserable" existence, I'd also like to know what your personal experience has been with Down's people?--so as to understand what your opinion is based on.

[blahblah454]

I know a lady who was pregnant and they told her that her baby was going to have down syndrome, the husband wanted to get an abortion and she did not. they ended up keeping the child. The child was born perfectly healthy. The tests are not always right, and after reading this thread there are several other cases where the doctors have been wrong.

Look at how often doctors prescribe wrong drugs to their patients, or unnecessary drugs, look at how many patients die from this. The last thing I would do is abort a baby people cause a test said that MAYBE a child could potentially have a problem. Until the test is accurate I would say don't even get it done.

[Jenna]

I'm kind of undecided about this.

My mother is an occupational therapist and works with people with disabilities, so I'm around it a lot. People have this misconception that people with Downs don't live "real" lives. I was even taught in school that people with Downs only live on average to be 23. Most live to be in their late 50's now with the technology we have. It is sad though, because every person with Downs will develop Alzheimer's...

Part of me agrees with the devil's advocate part. But I think I'd keep it.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by blahblah454

I know a lady who was pregnant and they told her that her baby was going to have down syndrome, the husband wanted to get an abortion and she did not. they ended up keeping the child. The child was born perfectly healthy. The tests are not always right, and after reading this thread there are several other cases where the doctors have been wrong.

Yeah, I've read in several newspaper articles (not journal articles) that the initial Down's tests are wrong in 20% of cases... that's pretty high, if true. I think the amniocentesis figures are more accurate, though I don't have an exact figure.

[Jinn]

I'm pretty pro-death, so..

This is the issue, however. Who decides what "serious conditions" are, vs. "minor trivialities?"... I mean, if the condition is non-fatal, as Down's syndrome and cleft palates are...how does one decide what is serious enough to warrant an abortion?

Anything the parent decides - if the parents don't want a little black baby, little gay baby, little white baby, little baby with DS, then abort it. I don't see a problem with it unless a government, society, etc.. is coercing the parents to make that choice. So long as it is left to the parent's choice, I don't see how it's any different than any other choice a parent makes. It's their lives.

Until it's birthed, it's still a set of cells just like any other in the mother's body. I'd look at aborting it like I would her getting liposuction; getting rid of cells she doesn't want in her body.

I'm pretty <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">left</span> extreme on this issue. Fuck the "God's seed" and "sanctity of life" stuff. It's not life until it's outside of her body. Until then it's a parasite.

EDIT: Realized I might be gifting left-leaning liberals a bad name. I'm extreme on this issue.

[Willravel]

It's inappropriate and unethical to require testing like that. Providing it as an option is wonderful, though. In case someone actually wants to know. Me? I'd love my kid no matter what. If I had a child born with 24 toes on each foot? They'd be the most wonderful 24 toes on the planet and I'd love each of them. If my baby was born with gills, I'd get a fish tank and I'd learn how to hold my breath for 20 minutes so I could rock him/her to sleep. And yes, if my baby was born with down's syndrome, I'd provide the best environment of love and security for that baby.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I'm pretty <span style="text-decoration: line-through;">left</span> extreme on this issue. Fuck the "God's seed" and "sanctity of life" stuff.

Jinn, I agree with you on this stuff. But this is not an abortion question, at least not to me--I'm pro-choice, and fuck the sanctity of life thing. People should have a right to choose what happens with their body--as long as the effects (read: resulting demographics) are mostly random/due to chance.

But I see this kind of decision differently--it's a matter of ethics. What is good for a society? Do you really not see any long-term problems with our entire species if everyone started aborting based on particular characteristics that they find personally and arbitrarily distasteful? Do you not at least see a demographic problem with the Chinese tending to abort female babies, for example?

[Ustwo]

My wife and I decided if the baby had downs syndrome we would abort.

I see no real point in going through that, downs kids tend to be very friendly and loving (genetics and personality there for those keeping score) but so is a puppy.

When they are 30 years old, a genetic dead end, and you are just hoping you can set it up so they can die comfortably without being taken advantage of or abused I just don't think its worth it.

Assuming Iceland is a socialized system, such things are to be expected, socialized systems the government controls your health care, and the cost, downs kids are expensive, plus they are often more willing to experiment with the population as a whole so the test may be for other reasons beyond just identifying downs.

Actually while I think socialized medicine is awful in delivery, one of the few good things is because EVERYONE is a ward of the state so to speak, you can get great long term experimental data, often without any semblance of patient consent. I'd be willing to guess that is part of that.

I think the ethical comparisons with this issue and basic eugenics are faulty because this is a true disease state, not skin color or sex. If you want to use a slippery slope thats fine, but in downs you have an extra chromosome (and occasionally a translocated one). Most people with it are sterile, and can have a wide range of health issues along with mental retardation which at best gives an IQ of 85 (most are much lower), this again is at best, where they can function doing menial jobs.

When they start to force you to abort, give me a call.

[*Nikki*]

Those tests can be wrong!!

I know several people who were told while pregnant that they were going to have a child with a disability of some sort, none did!!

What kind of person aborts a child under these circumstances??? Someone who doesn't need to get pregnant in the first place!

Also one of my childhood friend's Uncle has Downs. He is over 30 years old and has lived a wonderful life.

[Willravel]

*Nikki* brings up a paramount point (well done!). What if the test is a false negative and you abort a healthy baby?

[Jinn]

But I see this kind of decision differently--it's a matter of ethics. What is good for a society? Do you really not see any long-term problems with our entire species if everyone started aborting based on particular characteristics that they find personally and arbitrarily distasteful? Do you not at least see a demographic problem with the Chinese tending to abort female babies, for example?

I thought I was addressing ethics. I've never heard of ethics being used to specify what is good for society. I thought it was just a personal scale of what is right and what is wrong. And to me, there's nothing wrong with aborting a child you do not want (for whatever reason). Realistically, the reason is just semantics.. you're still destroying the cells. Whether it's because of FAS, Downs, or "the time isn't right," the mother is still aborting, and that's fA-OK with me. Abort, abort, abort!

And even if I were to address it on a "societal" scale, I'm not sure how I see how having less and less people born with Downs Syndrome would be a bad thing. If the Chinese want to abort female babies, then so be it. We'll have less Chinese women. I'm not sure why that's a problem, just like I wouldn't have a problem with having more gay children, less white children, whatever. I cannot and will not ever be responsible for what is being born, and it seems pointless to say that it would be "bad" for society to have less OR more of any given characteristic.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by Martian

1) Devil's advocate response

The human genetic pool has been degrading for centuries now. Natural selection is no longer a function of human physiology. An individual with Down's Syndrome or Asperger's (or yes, even a cleft palate) is less well suited to survival than a physically healthy specimen; should that individual survive to reproduce, they're are effectively weakening the human genome.

Note that this argument also applies to me, as a sufferer of Crohn's Disease.

Human life is "so special"... and yet just about anybody can create it with zero controls.

The question is: Who determines the controls and what happens when they erode? Updated eugenics?

...

I'm for these kinds of tests. Perhaps I'm a selfish, cruel man or perhaps I believe that we are what we do and if you can't do, you shouldn't be.

This is, of course, saying that you can prevent those that "can't do", of course. I don't promote the gassing of those who lose limbs / eyesight / hearing.

I would rather be with a partner who agrees to abort a kid with a serious defect so that we may try again than a partner that wants to hold onto whatever broken genetic soup we manage to crotch-bake.

I think people against these kind of tests should go stand in front of a mirror and recite the following mantra:

"Individual human beings are not special or unique. The fruit of my loins will not special. My parents were not special. I am not special."

We are what we do and what we do makes us special, but not who and what we are...

[Jinn]

I would rather be with a partner who agrees to abort a kid with a serious defect so that we may try again than a partner that wants to hold onto whatever broken genetic soup we manage to crotch-bake.

HAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Plan9]

Angry laughter?

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by willravel

*Nikki* brings up a paramount point (well done!). What if the test is a false negative and you abort a healthy baby?

Well that shouldn't really bother anyone pro-choice right?

I personally wouldn't do anything without multiple conformations but its a risk you take.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by willravel

*Nikki* brings up a paramount point (well done!). What if the test is a false negative and you abort a healthy baby?

Borla and blahblah also brought it up... and Ustwo, why wouldn't it bother someone who was pro-choice? If a couple was trying very hard to have a baby, and they had no intention of aborting it at any point (aka they were emotionally and financially ready and willing to have a baby), then I think it's still fair to say that it would "bother" them to abort it. That has nothing to do with pro-choice, to me... it's just something very sad and difficult for that couple to go through.

Originally Posted by Crompsin

"Individual human beings are not special or unique. The fruit of my loins will not special. My parents were not special. I am not special."

Perhaps true. And I agree with you there. But if no one is special... then why try so hard to have a "perfect" child? Why not just take what you're given, since no one is special anyway? Also, if "doing" is so important to you... how would you handle if your partner had the test done, got a false positive (e.g. it said the baby was fine, when it wasn't), and you went on to have a Down's baby anyway?--it happens. I mean, how would you cope with that, given your attitude towards doing = value?

[Jinn]

I'd sue the hospital if it was a false-negative.

[inBOIL]

Prenatal testing can be valuable even if you decide against abortion. Often there are treatments that are most effective when started early, so it can help alleviate or prevent symptoms of the disease. I'm not sure if this applies to Down's, but it can't hurt to know to watch for specific conditions so that you can give your child the best care possible.

As for the demographic concerns, I'm all for diversity, but I can't see any situation in which a society is better off for having people with Down's. A multiracial society has greater genetic diversity than a single-race society, which gives a greater chance of resistance to disease, changing living conditions, etc., but Down's people don't reproduce; their genetic diversity can't be tapped for society's benefit. Besides, if a cure for Down's were developed, it would have the same demographic effect as aborting Down's fetuses. Would eliminating the condition from society via a cure be wrong?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by abaya

Borla and blahblah also brought it up... and Ustwo, why wouldn't it bother someone who was pro-choice?

I'm not pro choice. I'd have the baby if it had 1 arm not just because I'd love it unconditionally, but because I can't personally bring myself to harm a fetus.

[Plan9]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I'd sue the hospital if it was a false-negative.

Puhleez, they'd have you sign all the waivers like you're a blind midget daredevil.

Originally Posted by abaya

Perhaps true. And I agree with you there. But if no one is special... then why try so hard to have a "perfect" child? Why not just take what you're given, since no one is special anyway? Also, if "doing" is so important to you... how would you handle if your partner had the test done, got a false positive (e.g. it said the baby was fine, when it wasn't), and you went on to have a Down's baby anyway?--it happens. I mean, how would you cope with that, given your attitude towards doing = value?

I'd want a "perfect" (healthy) child because it is good for humanity from a genetic standpoint.

I'd give my kid up for adoption or leave it on the mountains for the wolves or toss it into a government sponsored spike pit or something. I'm a cruel fuck. If I was born deformed, I wouldn't want my parents to "change my diaper" for the rest of my life and society to foot the bill for my disability. This is humane, but this doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

You buy a new CD. You play it and it doesn't sound right regardless of the fact that is whole CD and just came fresh out of the packaging. Do you keep it? Hell no. You throw it away.

...

All of this should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm a reasonable, humane person.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by inBOIL

Prenatal testing can be valuable even if you decide against abortion. Often there are treatments that are most effective when started early, so it can help alleviate or prevent symptoms of the disease. I'm not sure if this applies to Down's, but it can't hurt to know to watch for specific conditions so that you can give your child the best care possible.

Yes, I think that's especially true for spina bifida... although I think most people probably abort those too.

Originally Posted by inBOIL

but Down's people don't reproduce; their genetic diversity can't be tapped for society's benefit.

You might also say the same for gay people... I wonder if evangelicals would abort those, if they could eventually be identified (genetically) in utero?

Originally Posted by inBOIL

Besides, if a cure for Down's were developed, it would have the same demographic effect as aborting Down's fetuses. Would eliminating the condition from society via a cure be wrong?

I don't know... hence my reason for creating this thread. I am trying to figure it out for myself. My gut feeling is that it is unethical to breed out any subpopulation for the reason that they are "burdensome" and "undesirable"... because truly, where do you draw the line for that? Do you think that people with cleft palates are burdensome? etc.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by abaya

Borla and blahblah also brought it up... and Ustwo, why wouldn't it bother someone who was pro-choice? If a couple was trying very hard to have a baby, and they had no intention of aborting it at any point (aka they were emotionally and financially ready and willing to have a baby), then I think it's still fair to say that it would "bother" them to abort it. That has nothing to do with pro-choice, to me... it's just something very sad and difficult for that couple to go through.

I can't imagine someone pro-choice getting all teary eyed over a fetus, not if they are morally consistent. Its obviously not a person at that point to them and they can always try again.

Perhaps true. And I agree with you there. But if no one is special... then why try so hard to have a "perfect" child? Why not just take what you're given, since no one is special anyway? Also, if "doing" is so important to you... how would you handle if your partner had the test done, got a false positive (e.g. it said the baby was fine, when it wasn't), and you went on to have a Down's baby anyway?--it happens. I mean, how would you cope with that, given your attitude towards doing = value?

I have two great kids, they are not perfect, but I am quite happy with them. No one is talking about perfection, we are talking about a genetic disease that results in mental retardation, sterility, and a pile of other problems. If there is EVER a good time for an abortion this is it.

Had I had a downs child it would have sucked, and been delt with like any disease a child can get, which is as best as possible

[abaya]

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm not pro choice. I'd have the baby if it had 1 arm not just because I'd love it unconditionally, but because I can't personally bring myself to harm a fetus.

Okay. (I was actually asking Ustwo, not you, but good to know your position anyway.) So for you personally, it IS an abortion issue, cut and dry... because you think all abortion is wrong, no?

[Willravel]

Well I like to argue to other's perspectives, so no. Personally, I'm pro life, but I can discuss something from a pro choice perspective (being massively liberal). For me, it's basically cut and dry, yes, but even if I were to change my stance on abortion a bit, I'd still have the baby. That aside, the test is wrong because parents retain the right to have their baby come out a surprise. Some parents don't want the genetic tests. Some don't even want the gender. Unless it's posing some risk to mommy, leave it up to the parents. Mandatory testing for stuff like this is unnecessary.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I can't imagine someone pro-choice getting all teary eyed over a fetus, not if they are morally consistent.

Morally consistent?... please explain. Does that mean that pro-choice parents are not supposed to give as much of a shit about a desired, conceived-on-purpose developing fetus as pro-life parents do?...

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Had I had a downs child it would have sucked, and been delt with like any disease a child can get, which is as best as possible

Fair 'nuff, really.

[ngdawg]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

I'd sue the hospital if it was a false-negative.

You can't as you're given the statistics of false readings.
When I was expecting my twins, the doctor tried pushing the tests, both blood and amniocentesis, but I declined every time he brought it up with "It took me this long to get this far, I'll deal with what I get". I got two big healthy babies.
Another woman in my family's neighborhood was not so lucky; she got the amnio and lost both babies as a result of it.
Why does Iceland enforce testing? Does it also enforce abortion? Or is it no more than the glucose/high blood pressure/toxemia, etc., testings that are done here?
Down's Syndrome is a scale of severity, from seemingly nonexistent to severely handicapped. Tests can, at the most, tell you if there's the chromosomal abnormality and perhaps ultrasounds can detect the physical abnormalities, but intelligence, quality of life, etc., can't be tested for. I can understand the thought behind wanting to abort should the tests be positive without a doubt; on the other hand, I can also relate to the notion that since no one is perfect, accept the imperfections and do the best you can. A responsible adult knows what he or she can handle.