Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prenatal Screening not so Accurate as Once Thought – “Normal” Children Killed as “Defective”?
LifeSiteNews ^ | 11/24/06 | Hilary White

Posted on 11/25/2006 5:31:23 PM PST by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: metmom
Science and technology is all well and good, but nothing but great evil can come upon man when men pretend to play god.
21 posted on 11/26/2006 1:48:41 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Pinged from Terri NOVEMBER Dailies

8mm


22 posted on 11/26/2006 4:15:08 AM PST by 8mmMauser ("We will not be silent. We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will give you no rest.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TheresaKett

Same thing happened to my cousin. She was told her baby had multiple abnormalities and would not survive for more than a few hours after birth. She refused an abortion and went on to have a perfectly healthy, normal child. Her son is in college today and doing well.

I was 35 when I had my last child. I refused testing. Amniocentesis has a 1% miscarriage rate under the best of circumstances, and I would never abort my child anyway. My daughter is healthy and beautiful. Sometimes what doctors don't know but think they do is frightening.


23 posted on 11/26/2006 6:14:11 AM PST by LadyNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TheresaKett

That sounds like a crock to me. Federal guidelines about disabled children do not have a clause like that. How could they?


24 posted on 11/26/2006 6:40:07 AM PST by sine_nomine (No more RINO presidents. We need another Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: wagglebee
Each summer, for the last 26 years, I've worked at a camp for handicapped children. When I started there in 1981, the camper population was probably about 85% Down Syndrome.

Now, that number is probably below 10%. The vast majority of the kids are autistic these days.

They don't make Downs Syndrome kids like they used to. They barely make them at all.

26 posted on 11/26/2006 7:45:59 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I think I'll print this article out and bring it to my next OB visit. I've had to explain to 3 doctors and 1 nurse why I don't want prenatal screening for the "normal reasons", but would be happy to if they deem it medically necessary so those in the delivery room have everything they need to care for the new baby when it arrives.

The perinatal specialist doctor and one nurse reacted like this: "GOOD FOR YOU!" The other doctor seemed to act like I was less than well-informed when he asked for further explanation and I told him just where I stand. Good thing he was on rotation and not my 'real' doctor :)


27 posted on 11/26/2006 7:59:30 AM PST by cgk (I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; 4lifeandliberty; AbsoluteGrace; afraidfortherepublic; Alamo-Girl; anniegetyourgun; ...

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...

28 posted on 11/26/2006 8:00:38 AM PST by cgk (I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
This age group has a significantly higher, although still very low percentage chance of conceiving a child with Down syndrome.

At age 35 the chance of conceiving a Downs child is estimated to be 1 in 400 or one-quarter of one percent of conceptions. At age 40 it becomes 1 percent and for conceptions over age 45 the overall average increases to 4 percent. However, 75 percent of all babies with Down syndrome are born to women under 35.


This author lost me with this head in the sand, PC way of dealing with the Down's statistics (let's not say anything that would offend women who have delayed childbearing till after 35!). By switching from "1 in" to percentages, he massages the statistics in a way to downplay their significance. Furthermore, the statement that 75% of all babies with downs are born to women under 35 is true, but disingenuous since pregnance above 35 is still a relatively rare thing.

The numbers based on maternal age (without the PC)... @ age 25, 1 in 1100 @ age 35, 1 in 350 @ age 45, 1 in 25
29 posted on 11/26/2006 8:05:19 AM PST by Old_Mil (http://www.constitutionparty.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care
It's an evil culture that does not recognize the special sacred worth of each person.

Well said... Amen!

30 posted on 11/26/2006 8:05:55 AM PST by cgk (I don't see myself as a conservative. I see myself as a religious, right-wing, wacko extremist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
Interesting Related Article: Obstetrical Sonography: The Best Way to Terrify a Pregnant Woman
31 posted on 11/26/2006 12:57:29 PM PST by Theophilus (Abortion = Child Sacrifice = Future Sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: inc0mmunicad0

So you would rather kill the child by shooting saline into it in utero, then deliver it dead? That is how your compassion manifests itself?


32 posted on 11/26/2006 2:17:53 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

Comment #34 Removed by Moderator

To: cgk
What a sweet picture...all babies must live!
35 posted on 11/27/2006 12:02:25 AM PST by Nancee ((Nancee Lynn Cheney))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; metmom; tutstar; duckbutt; Fiddlstix; somniferum; WKUHilltopper; ...
"Every soul is precious and worthy; we're all handicapped in one way or another."


Truer words were never posted bump.
36 posted on 11/27/2006 1:27:54 AM PST by WKB (Rudy V Hillary= There is no lessor of two liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: inc0mmunicad0
Succinct = So you would rather kill the child by shooting saline into it in utero, then deliver it dead? That is how your compassion manifests itself?

Hyperbolic = Do you just lust to slaughter the tiny baby by pickling it alive, pumping it full of a burning caustic salt solution in it's mother's womb, forcing her to a premature labor of a stillborn murdered infant? That is how your compassion manifests itself?

Is the veracity of the statement less important to you then it's delivery?

37 posted on 11/27/2006 8:17:21 AM PST by Theophilus (Abortion = Child Sacrifice = Future Sacrifice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Theophilus

Why bother to argue with this troll. Anyone who uses the term "anti-choice" is obviously from the pro-death camp.


39 posted on 11/27/2006 8:57:53 AM PST by Evie Munchkin (Democrats - party of death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: inc0mmunicad0
but if competent medical advice informed me that a child would live only a brief time, in pain, then I would subugate my needs/desires to the higher good of minimizing the child's pain and trauma. If that meant terminating the pregnancy, so be it, and the earlier the better--the less chance of pain and suffering, the better.

I used to think that was the kinder way to handle such a situation too. Over the years though, especially experiencing through friends a premature baby's death, I have come to prioritize differently. G-d didn't say "Choose Pain-Free." G-d said "Choose Life." Now I get it. While pain is bad, and I believe in minimizing all pain, especially for children who don't understand it, now I see that the worse of the two choices is to kill the living being. Killing to prevent pain, I now believe, is wrong. At least for us human beings.

If a new baby really does have a condition incompatible with life, then that child will die. And he will die in the arms of those who loved him, not from a sharp needle before his time. I think that is better. I understand you disagree, and you are a thinking person too, so your opinion is OK for you.

Just curious--this is something I've often wondered--what is it that you feel you gain by using hyperbolic "scare" language? (If you feel this is an inappropriate question, I'll withdraw it. It's just that I see this so consistently used by anti-choice people, and it seems to me to inhibit, rather than further, any attempts at conversation.)

I didn't mean to use scare language. I am a bit of a dramatic person. Not on this issue alone, just kind of in my personality. I am full of passion in lots of ways. Thanks for telling me that you feel it inhibits conversation -- I can use correction. As much as I enjoy making a dramatic point, I do want the conversations to go on!

40 posted on 11/27/2006 2:51:39 PM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson