Anyone not going for more children because of advanced maternal age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was one of those "pro-choice for other people, but I would never do it myself" people, until the prenatal test results came back. Things are VERY different when the decision turns from theoretical to reality.

Yes, the statistics are very interesting. 90% of women pregnant with Down Syndrome babies abort. Clearly, not 90% of all women are pro-choice. Fascinating to me.

So this must mean that some very high percentage of women are hypocrites, then.

[Anonymous]

There are risks at any age. The 3 people I know who have children with Down syndrome all conveived and delivered when they were in their late 20's. Yes, the risk is high as you get older, but the risk is alawys there.

The biggest issue with 35+ is getting pregnant in the first place as fertility does decrease with age, but once you are pregnant the risk of abnormalities aren't much different.

There have also been studie lately on the risk of older fathers an increased risk of autism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was one of those "pro-choice for other people, but I would never do it myself" people, until the prenatal test results came back. Things are VERY different when the decision turns from theoretical to reality.

Yes, the statistics are very interesting. 90% of women pregnant with Down Syndrome babies abort. Clearly, not 90% of all women are pro-choice. Fascinating to me.

So this must mean that some very high percentage of women are hypocrites, then.

Why, yes, I believe it does mean that. (And also, that men are hypocrites as well, since the husbands also agree to this, in most cases.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was one of those "pro-choice for other people, but I would never do it myself" people, until the prenatal test results came back. Things are VERY different when the decision turns from theoretical to reality.

Yes, the statistics are very interesting. 90% of women pregnant with Down Syndrome babies abort. Clearly, not 90% of all women are pro-choice. Fascinating to me.

So this must mean that some very high percentage of women are hypocrites, then.

Why, yes, I believe it does mean that. (And also, that men are hypocrites as well, since the husbands also agree to this, in most cases.)

Sad, but true on both counts.

[Anonymous]

OP, I had a pregnancy with serious abnormalities in my 20s. Age changes the angle of the line on the graph, but the majority of people with SN kids had them in their 20s because more women have kids in their 20s. If you want another child, you can do prenatal testing and terminate a pregnancy with serious issues, but you could have done this when you were younger as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given all the testing that is available and given what is a somewhat socially permissive "choice" culture, it seems to me that families are kind of, I don't know... pressured maybe? To abort a child who tests as having Down Syndrome. I am pro-choice as a policy stance, don't get me wrong, but I am not "pro abortion" as a socio-cultural stance.

When I hear of people say that they'll attempt to get pregnant but will abort if a Trisomy 21 abnormality presents itself in the pregnancy, I get veeeeeery, um, well, very sad. Depressed.

And I almost get the sense that many people would look at a parent of a child with a chromosomal abnormality and think: "Why didn't you get tested? And if it came up positive, why didn't you abort?" As if it's almost a social--or even moral?--responsibility to do so.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Nowhere, really. Maybe just to say that it makes sense that if having a child with a chromosomal abnormality terrifies you (whether for selfish reasons or "for the sake of the child") then it makes total sense not to attempt pregnancy at all, or at least avoid it when the chances of this happening skyrocket.

I agree. Policy issues aside, I believe it is immoral to abort Down's babies, especially with the very clear information we have these days about the dramatic increase in risk with older moms. There are long waiting lists of families who wish to adopt DS babies, so that if a family feels unable to care for the child, someone else gladly would help. Down Syndrome is a significant though not insurmountable abnormality. We do ourselves, our society and indeed all of humanity a grave disservice (reminiscent of Nazi Germany) by perpetuating the myth that these people are "too much" to care for or that they would be better off dead.

OP, I think you will find very few women who are afraid to get pregnant beyond 35 in the DC Metro area. This is when childbearing tends to happen for many of the educated, career-track families around here. And, the vast majority will abort if they discover an abnormality. If you are comfortable following this trend, then you can rest assured that you are in good company and should not have any concerns about getting pregnant at 37. And of course, the chances are highly in your favor that your baby will turn out to be genetically "perfect".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do some volunteer work that puts me in regular contact with adults with Downs Syndrome. I enjoy my time with these folks, and they do have love to give and talents to share.
I also am not planning to have any more children, but if I find myself unexpectedly pregnant (very unexpectedly--I'm on an IUD!) I would do the testing and I would end the pregnancy if it came back positive for Downs.
While some folks with Downs Syndrome are rather high-functioning, many have very severe disabilities that require constant care. In addition to the intellectual disabilities, there are numerous physical issues associated with Downs. These physical issues in the past meant that life expectancy for DS was in the 30s. Now it is much higher, more like the 50s. When you couple that with advanced maternal age, you will outlive your disabled child. The parents of the DS folks I know are very, VERY concerned about what will happen to their children when they are gone. If you have other children, their care of their disabled sibling will not end when they leave your home. They will be caring for that sibling forever. In many cases, that sibling will have to come live with them. Long term care in group homes is also an option, but they are expensive, or substandard. Families sinks huge amounts of money into savings for long term care for their disabled children. These folks have significantly less in retirement savings, or in college savings for their other children because of this.
I want to make clear that I fully support anyone's choice to proceed with a pregnancy of a disabled child. I cherish the time I spend with the Downs Syndrome community, and have immense respect and admiration for the families of these special folks. I also know that, while I can't control all of the twist and turns of fate for my existing family, I will not invite the enormous financial and emotional burden that comes with a disabled child.
Again, not trying to convince anyone that my choice is the only "correct" one, but offering the thought process I've gone through to reach this conclusion.

Yet, you personally believe that they are better off not being born - because they might demand too much sacrifice.

I myself find this absolutely vile and truly horrifying. What the hell have we come to, people?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given all the testing that is available and given what is a somewhat socially permissive "choice" culture, it seems to me that families are kind of, I don't know... pressured maybe? To abort a child who tests as having Down Syndrome. I am pro-choice as a policy stance, don't get me wrong, but I am not "pro abortion" as a socio-cultural stance.

When I hear of people say that they'll attempt to get pregnant but will abort if a Trisomy 21 abnormality presents itself in the pregnancy, I get veeeeeery, um, well, very sad. Depressed.

And I almost get the sense that many people would look at a parent of a child with a chromosomal abnormality and think: "Why didn't you get tested? And if it came up positive, why didn't you abort?" As if it's almost a social--or even moral?--responsibility to do so.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Nowhere, really. Maybe just to say that it makes sense that if having a child with a chromosomal abnormality terrifies you (whether for selfish reasons or "for the sake of the child") then it makes total sense not to attempt pregnancy at all, or at least avoid it when the chances of this happening skyrocket.

I agree. Policy issues aside, I believe it is immoral to abort Down's babies, especially with the very clear information we have these days about the dramatic increase in risk with older moms. There are long waiting lists of families who wish to adopt DS babies, so that if a family feels unable to care for the child, someone else gladly would help. Down Syndrome is a significant though not insurmountable abnormality. We do ourselves, our society and indeed all of humanity a grave disservice (reminiscent of Nazi Germany) by perpetuating the myth that these people are "too much" to care for or that they would be better off dead.

OP, I think you will find very few women who are afraid to get pregnant beyond 35 in the DC Metro area. This is when childbearing tends to happen for many of the educated, career-track families around here. And, the vast majority will abort if they discover an abnormality. If you are comfortable following this trend, then you can rest assured that you are in good company and should not have any concerns about getting pregnant at 37. And of course, the chances are highly in your favor that your baby will turn out to be genetically "perfect".

It's not that DS fetuses are better off dead - it is (healthy) children that are born in their place + families, on balance, that are better off. For every child born with DS there is another child not born for the simple reason that people only desire some fixed number of children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was one of those "pro-choice for other people, but I would never do it myself" people, until the prenatal test results came back. Things are VERY different when the decision turns from theoretical to reality.

Yes, the statistics are very interesting. 90% of women pregnant with Down Syndrome babies abort. Clearly, not 90% of all women are pro-choice. Fascinating to me.

Because people act in fear. They are pressured to abort. They are not given accurate information.

And since an abortion happens as a medical procedure, it seems clean and necessary and normal.

But if women exercised their control over their special needs children's lives after birth, by cutting them up into little pieces or severing their spinal cords, there would be obvious outrage.

Because this version of eugenics is hidden under the hospital drapes, it seems more ok. But it's the same action. A child is discovered to have special needs. She is rejected by her parents and society. And she is destroyed, either cut apart or torn apart.

Eugenics is only getting worse, not better.

I take it you are one of those pro-choice posters as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given all the testing that is available and given what is a somewhat socially permissive "choice" culture, it seems to me that families are kind of, I don't know... pressured maybe? To abort a child who tests as having Down Syndrome. I am pro-choice as a policy stance, don't get me wrong, but I am not "pro abortion" as a socio-cultural stance.

When I hear of people say that they'll attempt to get pregnant but will abort if a Trisomy 21 abnormality presents itself in the pregnancy, I get veeeeeery, um, well, very sad. Depressed.

And I almost get the sense that many people would look at a parent of a child with a chromosomal abnormality and think: "Why didn't you get tested? And if it came up positive, why didn't you abort?" As if it's almost a social--or even moral?--responsibility to do so.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Nowhere, really. Maybe just to say that it makes sense that if having a child with a chromosomal abnormality terrifies you (whether for selfish reasons or "for the sake of the child") then it makes total sense not to attempt pregnancy at all, or at least avoid it when the chances of this happening skyrocket.

I agree. Policy issues aside, I believe it is immoral to abort Down's babies, especially with the very clear information we have these days about the dramatic increase in risk with older moms. There are long waiting lists of families who wish to adopt DS babies, so that if a family feels unable to care for the child, someone else gladly would help. Down Syndrome is a significant though not insurmountable abnormality. We do ourselves, our society and indeed all of humanity a grave disservice (reminiscent of Nazi Germany) by perpetuating the myth that these people are "too much" to care for or that they would be better off dead.

OP, I think you will find very few women who are afraid to get pregnant beyond 35 in the DC Metro area. This is when childbearing tends to happen for many of the educated, career-track families around here. And, the vast majority will abort if they discover an abnormality. If you are comfortable following this trend, then you can rest assured that you are in good company and should not have any concerns about getting pregnant at 37. And of course, the chances are highly in your favor that your baby will turn out to be genetically "perfect".

It's not that DS fetuses are better off dead - it is (healthy) children that are born in their place + families, on balance, that are better off. For every child born with DS there is another child not born for the simple reason that people only desire some fixed number of children.

I can't stand this kind of casual utilitarianism. I never really noticed how much people rely on these kinds of arguments until I had a premature baby (now a smart, lovely, charming toddler). For me, being pro choice means that human life is never is not interchangeable or reducible to a simple arithmetic problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given all the testing that is available and given what is a somewhat socially permissive "choice" culture, it seems to me that families are kind of, I don't know... pressured maybe? To abort a child who tests as having Down Syndrome. I am pro-choice as a policy stance, don't get me wrong, but I am not "pro abortion" as a socio-cultural stance.

When I hear of people say that they'll attempt to get pregnant but will abort if a Trisomy 21 abnormality presents itself in the pregnancy, I get veeeeeery, um, well, very sad. Depressed.

And I almost get the sense that many people would look at a parent of a child with a chromosomal abnormality and think: "Why didn't you get tested? And if it came up positive, why didn't you abort?" As if it's almost a social--or even moral?--responsibility to do so.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Nowhere, really. Maybe just to say that it makes sense that if having a child with a chromosomal abnormality terrifies you (whether for selfish reasons or "for the sake of the child") then it makes total sense not to attempt pregnancy at all, or at least avoid it when the chances of this happening skyrocket.

I agree. Policy issues aside, I believe it is immoral to abort Down's babies, especially with the very clear information we have these days about the dramatic increase in risk with older moms. There are long waiting lists of families who wish to adopt DS babies, so that if a family feels unable to care for the child, someone else gladly would help. Down Syndrome is a significant though not insurmountable abnormality. We do ourselves, our society and indeed all of humanity a grave disservice (reminiscent of Nazi Germany) by perpetuating the myth that these people are "too much" to care for or that they would be better off dead.

OP, I think you will find very few women who are afraid to get pregnant beyond 35 in the DC Metro area. This is when childbearing tends to happen for many of the educated, career-track families around here. And, the vast majority will abort if they discover an abnormality. If you are comfortable following this trend, then you can rest assured that you are in good company and should not have any concerns about getting pregnant at 37. And of course, the chances are highly in your favor that your baby will turn out to be genetically "perfect".

It's not that DS fetuses are better off dead - it is (healthy) children that are born in their place + families, on balance, that are better off. For every child born with DS there is another child not born for the simple reason that people only desire some fixed number of children.

This is some pretty convoluted mental gymnastics you are playing here (unless your post was meant to be sarcastic - hard to tell here).

Why do you - or why does anyone - believe that a family would be "worse off" with one of their two children having DS? A bigger question -- why do we feel that struggles with our children, be they emotional or financial, make our lives worse? As a culture we have to really look at ourselves and question this notion that personal sacrifice or suffering causes life to be worse. I think we should all be asking ourselves: why are we so SURE that we cannot handle unexpected challenges that come our way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The discrimination against special needs babies here is expected, but sickening.

Look at this little guy, born to a young, healthy couple:

http://moreaboutmatthew.blogspot.com/

Look at these beautiful faces:

http://www.theidsc.org/

These could be your children, conceived in love, in a marriage. You would discard them in fear? We have come so far in our treatment of DS. My nephew has exceeded his milestones every step of the way so far, and is so loved.

Innocent children come from love and have love to give. If you are not opening your arms in love, OP, then you are not open to having any child, special needs or not.

For me, I am 36, and I hope and pray to have more children.

Actually, I believe people discard them in disgust. A sense of repulsion overcomes all other senses. Yet, ones logical and rational brains must come up with a reasonable sounding argument, so people say that "the burden will be too great" either financially or physically.

This, coming from families who have managed to accomplish what less than 1% of people world-wide have been able to accomplish in their lives; who are by every count the most successful, most highly educated and wealthiest of all living humans on the planet. But, they "can't" handle a simpleton child - heaven forbid, the burden! The challenge! So rich, yet we are emotionally and morally bankrupt. Even the very temporary strain of simply carrying a child to term and handing it over to another loving family to raise, would be too much of an emotional burden. Too much! Instead, sacrifice the baby on the altar of moral impoverishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I was one of those "pro-choice for other people, but I would never do it myself" people, until the prenatal test results came back. Things are VERY different when the decision turns from theoretical to reality.

Yes, the statistics are very interesting. 90% of women pregnant with Down Syndrome babies abort. Clearly, not 90% of all women are pro-choice. Fascinating to me.

Because people act in fear. They are pressured to abort. They are not given accurate information.

And since an abortion happens as a medical procedure, it seems clean and necessary and normal.

But if women exercised their control over their special needs children's lives after birth, by cutting them up into little pieces or severing their spinal cords, there would be obvious outrage.

Because this version of eugenics is hidden under the hospital drapes, it seems more ok. But it's the same action. A child is discovered to have special needs. She is rejected by her parents and society. And she is destroyed, either cut apart or torn apart.

Eugenics is only getting worse, not better.

There are already 4 billion people in the world. One less child is not going to hurt anything.

[Anonymous]

I am pregnant at age 40. If my fetus tests for T21 I will abort. At my age, a child with such a disability may well need assistance its whole life, will outlive me, and our "wonderful" American society I do not trust to care for such a human being. America doesn't even care for its non-disabled seniors who can fight for their needs better than a disabled person. So I would not knowingly have a child faced with that kind of fate.

[Anonymous]

This thread is totally about birth defects, but there are other aspects to AMA, like having the energy/money for another when older.