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

[Anonymous]

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

I really enjoyed being pregnant at 37. I experienced a lot of complications that correlate with age and cannot have more kids. If I had had an easy pregnancy, I definitely would have gone for another. I wish I had been ready to have kids earlier in life, but I think I made a good, responsible choice to wait. My grandmothers had healthy babies at 42 and 46 respectively, so I went into my pregnancy feeling pretty comfortable about AMA pregnancies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's nonsense. People discard them with sadness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?!

Yes, this poster personally believes this. You do not. That's why this is a PERSONAL choice. If you are horrified by the concept of abortion, then don't have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must be very please with your definition of "pro-choice", however, it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word. If you are pro-choice, then you support women's right to abort their fetuses (for whatever reason) as a matter of policy AND you don't judge them - certainly not harshly - for exercising this right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

For the same reason you hope your children will go to college, as opposed to be janitors (which I am sure you will loudly proclaim is a noble profession, while taking every possible step for your children to avoid it).

Life is full of unexpected challenges anyways which makes it even more prudent to avoid entirely predictable challenges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

That's nonsense. People discard them with sadness.

They discard them in fear. They discard them in disgust. They discard them in sadness. They discard them in relief. They discard them in embarrassment. They discard them in impatience and frustration and anxiety.

What matters is that they discard them. And annihilating innocent human beings is wrong.

[Anonymous]

So it's not enough to have abortion be legal--we also need to sanction any and all reasons for having abortions at any and all stages of pregnancy.

The baby has DS. Or the baby is a girl. The baby is too soon. The baby is too late. The baby is a...nothing.

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so you may live as you wish." --Mother Teresa

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it's not enough to have abortion be legal--we also need to sanction any and all reasons for having abortions at any and all stages of pregnancy.

The baby has DS. Or the baby is a girl. The baby is too soon. The baby is too late. The baby is a...nothing.

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so you may live as you wish." --Mother Teresa

I like this disingenuous posturing - having a child with DS is right there with baby being a girl or due at inconvenient time. As it happens, of course, a bunch of you support abortion for inconvenience. Abort, no problem, just don't do it for one of the most justifiable reasons ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must be very please with your definition of "pro-choice", however, it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word. If you are pro-choice, then you support women's right to abort their fetuses (for whatever reason) as a matter of policy AND you don't judge them - certainly not harshly - for exercising this right.

First off, my apologies to everyone who reads this post except the PP. I generally try to avoid making negative personal attacks on DCUM, but today I will make an exception.

PP, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not judging harshly women who choose to have abortions, for whatever reason. I'm judging you harshly for being stupid-for exactly the reason I stated above. Pro-choice means supporting women who chose termination, it also mean supporting women who choose to carry a pregnancy at great risk to their own health, or in a situation where a baby may not survive or may be severely disabled. As a woman who chose to continue a very high risk pregnancy and have an early baby, I know that "the fetus you are carrying is completely replaceable," or "why not terminate this fetus and have a new one that won't incur as many medical costs" are not pro-choice sentiments. If you were able to read some Peter Singer and some of the ethicists who disagree with him, I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion about prenatal and neonatal ethics, but I won't hold my breath. Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You must be very please with your definition of "pro-choice", however, it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word. If you are pro-choice, then you support women's right to abort their fetuses (for whatever reason) as a matter of policy AND you don't judge them - certainly not harshly - for exercising this right.

First off, my apologies to everyone who reads this post except the PP. I generally try to avoid making negative personal attacks on DCUM, but today I will make an exception.

PP, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not judging harshly women who choose to have abortions, for whatever reason. I'm judging you harshly for being stupid-for exactly the reason I stated above. Pro-choice means supporting women who chose termination, it also mean supporting women who choose to carry a pregnancy at great risk to their own health, or in a situation where a baby may not survive or may be severely disabled. As a woman who chose to continue a very high risk pregnancy and have an early baby, I know that "the fetus you are carrying is completely replaceable," or "why not terminate this fetus and have a new one that won't incur as many medical costs" are not pro-choice sentiments. If you were able to read some Peter Singer and some of the ethicists who disagree with him, I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion about prenatal and neonatal ethics, but I won't hold my breath. Carry on.

Wow, Peter Singer - I am impressed! I am not sure what is relevance of his position to your pathetic lecture, but, hey, I only took two classes with him. If you had a philosophical neuron in your minuscule frontal cortex, you would understand that the fact that "you are a woman with high risk pregnancy blah blah blah" bears zero relevance to the question about the meaning of pro-choice.

[Anonymous]

PP, I'll bite. Please give us the true definition of pro-choice.

[Anonymous]

You must be very please with your definition of "pro-choice", however, it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word. If you are pro-choice, then you support women's right to abort their fetuses (for whatever reason) as a matter of policy AND you don't judge them - certainly not harshly - for exercising this right.

I strongly disagree with you. In its most basic sense, those who identify with being "pro-choice" support abortion being available as a legal option in our country. Anything beyond that is EXTREMELY personalized and debatable. There are plenty of pro-choice people who do in fact feel that some reasons are acceptable (most would say incest/rape, and life of the mother) while other reasons - sometimes even ALL other reasons - are inexcusable, yet still support free access to abortion as an option merely because outlawing it creates a host of other huge problems.

And for me, just because I think it makes most sense for abortion to be legal (thereby making me "pro-choice" in the official sense), does not mean that I don't judge women who choose abortion. I believe abortion to a be a moral evil which is completely ruining the fabric of our society, the strength of families and the dignity of women, and in most cases displays an utter lack of imagination, prudence, love, judgement or accountability. There is absolutely no reason to destroy the life of a DS fetus, who the mother had every intention of carrying to term and giving birth to, when there are literally thousands of families across this country who are willing to parent that baby. Instead, the mothers ego gets in the way and she orders the execution of a baby that is often a matter of weeks away from being able to survive outside her womb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You must be very please with your definition of "pro-choice", however, it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word. If you are pro-choice, then you support women's right to abort their fetuses (for whatever reason) as a matter of policy AND you don't judge them - certainly not harshly - for exercising this right.

I strongly disagree with you. In its most basic sense, those who identify with being "pro-choice" support abortion being available as a legal option in our country. Anything beyond that is EXTREMELY personalized and debatable. There are plenty of pro-choice people who do in fact feel that some reasons are acceptable (most would say incest/rape, and life of the mother) while other reasons - sometimes even ALL other reasons - are inexcusable, yet still support free access to abortion as an option merely because outlawing it creates a host of other huge problems.

And for me, just because I think it makes most sense for abortion to be legal (thereby making me "pro-choice" in the official sense), does not mean that I don't judge women who choose abortion. I believe abortion to a be a moral evil which is completely ruining the fabric of our society, the strength of families and the dignity of women, and in most cases displays an utter lack of imagination, prudence, love, judgement or accountability. There is absolutely no reason to destroy the life of a DS fetus, who the mother had every intention of carrying to term and giving birth to, when there are literally thousands of families across this country who are willing to parent that baby. Instead, the mothers ego gets in the way and she orders the execution of a baby that is often a matter of weeks away from being able to survive outside her womb.

Do you have a DS child? If not, just shut up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You must be very please with your definition of "pro-choice", however, it has nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word. If you are pro-choice, then you support women's right to abort their fetuses (for whatever reason) as a matter of policy AND you don't judge them - certainly not harshly - for exercising this right.

I strongly disagree with you. In its most basic sense, those who identify with being "pro-choice" support abortion being available as a legal option in our country. Anything beyond that is EXTREMELY personalized and debatable. There are plenty of pro-choice people who do in fact feel that some reasons are acceptable (most would say incest/rape, and life of the mother) while other reasons - sometimes even ALL other reasons - are inexcusable, yet still support free access to abortion as an option merely because outlawing it creates a host of other huge problems.

And for me, just because I think it makes most sense for abortion to be legal (thereby making me "pro-choice" in the official sense), does not mean that I don't judge women who choose abortion. I believe abortion to a be a moral evil which is completely ruining the fabric of our society, the strength of families and the dignity of women, and in most cases displays an utter lack of imagination, prudence, love, judgement or accountability. There is absolutely no reason to destroy the life of a DS fetus, who the mother had every intention of carrying to term and giving birth to, when there are literally thousands of families across this country who are willing to parent that baby. Instead, the mothers ego gets in the way and she orders the execution of a baby that is often a matter of weeks away from being able to survive outside her womb.

Right, being able to survive outside of womb - with a little help from a zillion dollar equipment and thousands of man-hours. And in the case of DS child, this goes indefinitely.

[Anonymous]

Wow, I am feeling a little sorry for the OP, now. The thread is not called: we are anti abortion.