Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

MightyMandarin · 10-11-2017 04:04PM

circadian wrote: »

So, even if it were available you wouldn't, which you are well within your right to do so. Do you think that option should be available for those who may want to/need to?

I honestly don't really know. Given that my opinions on the abortion debate in general centre around the morality and ethics of denying a being (and I accept people will disagree with even describing a fetus as a living thing, but I believe it deserves that status) the right to life, I find it hard to accept that in society one would be denied the chance to live simply because they have an extra chromosone of their brain won't fully develop.

At the same time though, I know all too well the difficulties and considerable costs (both financial and time) involved in raising a child with disabilities and for that I think there are strong arguments to be made that a mother should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy when she is informed that raising this child will pose considerable challenges, which will not be faced by most other parents.

I have strong objections to the belief that a termination should be allowed out of financial reasons or not wanting to have a child at this particular moment in one's life. But I think when an unborn child, if it lives, will have considerable disabilities in their life, it becomes an entirely different case and for that I don't object as strongly.

I know I'm sitting on the fence here and I deserve to be berated for doing so, but I honestly haven't thought about the issue as much as I have over the debate in general.

Maybe as the more the issue comes in to the media foray, and I hear opinions and accounts which I haven't previously heard or considered, then I'll be able to form a decisive opinion on the issue, but for the moment I think there are other cases which deserve more urgent attention than this re: exceptions to Art.40.3.3.

mahamageehad · 10-11-2017 04:07PM

@nozz Actually coming into this debate initially I would have been of the same mindset - FFA and rape only. However, based on the many, many conversations I've had, plus my own research as well as reading the CA stuff and watching 8 committee, I've come around to see grounds based access as completely unworkable in reality. In Poland for e.g. where they have access for rape victims, it's been shown to be incredibly difficult for women to access and they even have cases coming up about human rights issues in this regard.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-11-2017 04:14PM

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Given that my opinions on the abortion debate in general centre around the morality and ethics of denying a being the right to life

You predicted the response to that. You assert it deserves the status, but other than assertion do not offer any foundation as to why it does. And that is likely to fail to sit well with pro choice people.

Also "denying a being a right to life" is a bit vague. If a man and woman get married tomorrow and decide between them NEVER to get pregnant, then they have denied any number of beings a right to life.

So I assume you mean EXISTING beings, such as something that has formed at conception. Not just any potential being. But when you claim we are "denying" them a right to life, you build into that an assumption that they warranted one in the first place. Again a foundation you have not actually built into your rhetoric here.

Not to mention we "deny beings" life all the time. In our meat industry. In our herbicide industry. In our medical industry. In our paper and wood industry. Our species is very much in the business of denying beings their right to life. So the foundation you need to build is one that explains why a human fetus devoid of any sentience or consciousness, specifically deserves one.... in a world where actual living independent entities up and down the kingdoms of flora and fauna seemingly do not.

I can not speak for any other Pro Choice people but I know... not just suspect but KNOW.... that if you could produce such a foundation I would without reservation or embarrassment become Anti Choice tomorrow.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

At the same time though, I know all too well the difficulties and considerable costs (both financial and time) involved in raising a child with disabilities and for that I think there are strong arguments to be made that a mother should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy when she is informed that raising this child will pose considerable challenges

The issue I see with that line of reasoning is that cost and challenges are relative. So if you were basing arguments on the right to abort such a fetus on these.... you would be making an argument that would not carry across social classes.

And it would not just be limited to Down Syndrome. Because even a 100% NORMAL pregnancy brings with it costs and challenges that are OK with some, but a near or totally insurmountable issue for others. So essentially you would be advocating abortion for the poorer classes and not the richer if you did it on a cost analysis basis.

You could literally have a woman walk in looking to abort a DS fetus being told "Nah, you earn way too much, the costs are nothing to you" and the next woman on the bread line being told "sure come on in, my moral arguments based on cost apply to you!"

And what little I know about you suggests that would be FAR from your intention.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I know I'm sitting on the fence here and I deserve to be berated for doing so

You are thinking out loud, on issues you are clearly unsure about, and reading with interest the input of others with an open mind? You should be commended, not berated, for that. It is far more than many do on this subject.

January · 10-11-2017 04:23PM

FishOnABike wrote: »

Both terms are interchangeably / commonly used and understood. It's not as if it's a book or something he has and can give to someone else. It's as much part of his genetic make up as him being a man. I have blue eyes / I am a blue eyed person. Why treat any other genetic characteristic differently?

No actually, if you speak to anyone who has a child with DS or a relative with DS then they will tell you the preferred term these days is 'a person with DS', as Neyite pointed out 'DS person' is derogatory.

....... · 10-11-2017 04:33PM

This post has been deleted.

MrPudding · 10-11-2017 04:35PM

Deleted User wrote: »

A person who is close to me, had a child with quite severe disabilities in recent years. This person is from a small community of church going Catholics. When they were still trying to come to terms with their child's diagnoses and all the hardship that may come with it, a number of people from their community made a point of letting them know that their child's disability was a punishment from God for engaging in sex outside of marriage. Talk about kicking someone when they're down.

It is my experience that in order for a person to behave in a completely unchristian and uncharitable way and to be totally devoid of empathy they, ironically enough, need to be christian.

Of course, I am not saying that this is the case with every christian, I happen to know quite a few very pleasant examples. I am merely saying that when I see an example of a truly horrible person, in terms of their views on certain things, they frequently turn out to be christian. Odd that...

MrP

rainbow kirby · 10-11-2017 04:38PM

Even if you don't plan on terminating in the case of a T21 (or otherwise) diagnosis, it's still a very useful thing to do as much testing and scanning as possible so that plans for the safest possible birth can be made. Outcomes are poorer when such conditions aren't diagnosed prenatally. Anomaly scans and as much screening as possible should be offered to everyone - there is no obligation on anyone to do it if they don't want to.

I'm 26 weeks with #2, both in the UK. We are sent a booklet at around 8-10 weeks detailing the prenatal and postnatal screening tests available to us - my hospital doesn't offer NIPT as standard yet but we do get the nuchal translucency measurement at the 12 week dating scan and bloods taken for the quad test, the results of these tests in conjunction with maternal age for Down's are combined to give risk values for T21, T18 and T13. Thankfully I haven't had anything to worry about either time but a friend had her first baby at 43 a year and a half ago and her age pushes the risk quite high for certain things so she was offered the Panorama test on the NHS straight away. The booklet is quite matter-of-fact about TFMR being an option, but it also details supports that are available and the benefits of having all information available if the choice is to carry to term. Nothing is directive and in the event of something going wrong counselling is provided free of charge, this is as it should be imho.

nice_guy80 · 10-11-2017 05:55PM

medical advances are great

Annasopra · 10-11-2017 07:11PM

end of the road wrote: »

sensationalist hysterical mistruths with no basis in fact.

Prove it

Akrasia · 10-11-2017 07:13PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So I wonder about the rape angle.... it does not seem to be morally, ethically or even functionally coherent to me.

The rape angle is there to counter the 'personal responsibility' argument against abortion, which in itself is nestled in the unspoken belief that women who have sex deserve to have their lives forever changed if there is a crisis pregnancy.

Army_of_One · 10-11-2017 07:56PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wonder if its Katie Asscock?

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-11-2017 08:29PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The rape angle is there to counter the 'personal responsibility' argument against abortion, which in itself is nestled in the unspoken belief that women who have sex deserve to have their lives forever changed if there is a crisis pregnancy.

Oh that angle I understand. I was more referring to the "I am against abortion except in cases of rape" angle which is less coherent for me. Firstly because it goes against the arguments they USUALLY give against abortion.... and secondly because it seems to be an exception that would be entirely unworkable in reality.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 10-11-2017 08:32PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh that angle I understand. I was more referring to the "I am against abortion except in cases of rape" angle which is less coherent for me. Firstly because it goes against the arguments they USUALLY give against abortion.... and secondly because it seems to be an exception that would be entirely unworkable in reality.

It doesn't tend to be a position that people have even slightly thought through, ime. I've had posters get very cross with me indeed just for asking "walk me through how that would work".

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-11-2017 08:36PM

Howard Breezy Minibus wrote: »

It doesn't tend to be a position that people have even slightly thought through, ime. I've had posters get very cross with me indeed just for asking "walk me through how that would work".

Yeah that's exactly what I said above. Not one person I have met espousing that position appears to have thought it through. I was hoping today would be the exception but.... alas....

Gbear · 10-11-2017 08:42PM

Akrasia wrote: »

The rape angle is there to counter the 'personal responsibility' argument against abortion, which in itself is nestled in the unspoken belief that women who have sex deserve to have their lives forever changed if there is a crisis pregnancy.

I would've thought that the counter to that argument would be "don't be a judgemental arse" but I guess I'm just some mad eejit.

I wish people didn't have to feel they had to trick pro-choicers with this kind of logic.

Autochange · 10-11-2017 08:44PM

Abort if you want. If not then dont.

Irish women are not given the choice in this backward, corrupt sh1tbox of a country we live in.

10-11-2017 08:48PM

In 2013, of conceptions in London alone roughly 23% of pregnancies were terminated, if you consider the size of the demographic who screen positive for Downs Syndrome, I'm wondering if a 90% termination rate is actually that high. It's impossible to predict how Irish people would receive this until such time as we revisit reproductive rights, I don't however believe our figures would be as high.

Akrasia · 10-11-2017 09:17PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh that angle I understand. I was more referring to the "I am against abortion except in cases of rape" angle which is less coherent for me. Firstly because it goes against the arguments they USUALLY give against abortion.... and secondly because it seems to be an exception that would be entirely unworkable in reality.

It really is the exception that proves the rule.
People who allow abortion for rape but not other circumstances need to question the reason why they oppose abortion in those other circumstances, and whether or not there is an element of blaming women and using the pregnancy as a punishment for perceived irresponsibility

Mousewar · 10-11-2017 09:19PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm rather struck by this post, especially as it's so well thanked. Do you really mean this? I mean, it's straight up eugenics.
Pre-natal tests are only going to get better. Soon you'll be able to get a comprehensive guide to all your unborn child's likely health issues. Where would you draw the line? At Down syndrome? Heart disease? Autism? Asthma?

I don't envy anyone having to make this kind of choice when faced with their child having a serious health issue (and, along with my wife, I've made such a decision) and I wouldn't lecture them but the idea of only pursuing a pregnancy that would result in the 'healthiest child possible' seems...well, it's troubling to me.

Also, I can't imagine the difficulty that the woman in that article faced but I would point out that her case is as negatively extreme as those cases championed by DS groups are positively extreme.

Akrasia · 10-11-2017 09:24PM

Gbear wrote: »

I would've thought that the counter to that argument would be "don't be a judgemental arse" but I guess I'm just some mad eejit.

I wish people didn't have to feel they had to trick pro-choicers with this kind of logic.

Its not an argument to call them names, it is an argument to demonstrate how a position that relies on personal responsibility does not extend to someone who was raped

It is always better to show someone the flaws in their reason than it is to call them names

(By argument i mean in this sense,

https://youtu.be/wxrbOVeRonQ

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-11-2017 09:25PM

Mousewar wrote: »

I mean, it's straight up eugenics.

I wrote most of this in my first posts on the thread. So sorry for the copy and paste....

Interesting that the first definition of Eugenics that google offers up when asked is "the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics."

First the dark history of Eugenics was based in a government FORCING certain programs on the populace. What is being talked about HERE is giving parents the knowledge AND the choice about what kind of baby they want to produce.

Second the definition says it is to "increase the occurrence of desirable characteristics". What is being discussed here is the termination of a condition/disease. So rather than the increase of desirable characteristics, it is the termination of a negative and detrimental condition.

Third it is about improving a POPULATION, where as what we are talking about here is giving INDIVIDUALS a choice. A choice some of them will take one way, and some the other.

This is not Eugenics as I am seeing it defined. It is not a government enforced program at the societal level, but an individual CHOICE and nothing more.

Mousewar wrote: »

Where would you draw the line? At Down syndrome? Heart disease? Autism? Asthma?

Does it matter? If so, why? The distinction being made here is that the genetics are a blue print for a person, they are not themselves a "person" yet. What exactly is WRONG with looking at a blue print and saying "no, lets not build this one, but try again?"

That is the CHOICE people should ultimately have in my world view. And I see nothing wrong with having or making that choice. It does not sit well with you, but I do not see why myself.

AbusesToilets · 10-11-2017 09:33PM

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm rather struck by this post, especially as it's so well thanked. Do you really mean this? I mean, it's straight up eugenics.
Pre-natal tests are only going to get better. Soon you'll be able to get a comprehensive guide to all your unborn child's likely health issues. Where would you draw the line? At Down syndrome? Heart disease? Autism? Asthma?

I don't envy anyone having to make this kind of choice when faced with their child having a serious health issue (and, along with my wife, I've made such a decision) and I wouldn't lecture them but the idea of only pursuing a pregnancy that would result in the 'healthiest child possible' seems...well, it's troubling to me.

Also, I can't imagine the difficulty that the woman in that article faced but I would point out that her case is as negatively extreme as those cases championed by DS groups are positively extreme.

How could a parent not opt to avail themselves of an opportunity to give their children as much of an advantage in life as possible? To me, if one is given the option to ensure that your progeny is free from disease or genetic abnormalities, you have to take it. Where is the virtue in knowing risking your child's health if you don't have to?

Not to mention the fact that you are deliberately putting your child at a disadvantage relative to the rest of the populace, as you can be sure that plenty of other people would screen their kids.

Neyite · 10-11-2017 09:53PM

Mousewar wrote: »

I'm rather struck by this post, especially as it's so well thanked. Do you really mean this? I mean, it's straight up eugenics.
Pre-natal tests are only going to get better. Soon you'll be able to get a comprehensive guide to all your unborn child's likely health issues. Where would you draw the line? At Down syndrome? Heart disease? Autism? Asthma?.

It's already happening to a certain extent with IVF. Some countries offer zygote screening for some severe genetic diseases. Some offer gender selection if either parent is a carrier of a condition that affects a specific gender. With the advances in genetics and in In Vitro technology in years to come, it's probably going to be increasingly commonplace.

Gbear · 10-11-2017 10:03PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Its not an argument to call them names, it is an argument to demonstrate how a position that relies on personal responsibility does not extend to someone who was raped

It is always better to show someone the flaws in their reason than it is to call them names

(By argument i mean in this sense, https://youtu.be/wxrbOVeRonQ

But the reason it's not a valid argument isn't because "not everyone deserves to get pregnant".

The issue is that the "personal responsiblity" notion is nonsense to begin with and it's born of them being, well, judgemental arses.

Your line of counter-argument looks to me an awful lot like trying to shame someone who's pro-life into being pro-choice by labelling them as rape apologists when, really, how the child was conceived shouldn't be relevant to their argument.

A possible implication of your argument (although I'm not saying this is stated in it, much less that you believe it yourself), is that they are justified in saying that women should carry babies to term if they voluntarily had sex and became pregnant and that personal responsibility is a valid determinator as to whether a woman is justified in having an abortion.

Unless they want to cop to hating women and think that they deserve to go through childbirth for having the temerity to have sex, then ultimately the basis has to be brought back to their notion of the sanctity of life.

The parameters for the pro-life argument must be:
Whether there's a danger to the life of the mother - how can you justify killing the mother to save the child? At best it's morally neutral and the decision should be given to the individual.

Whether the foetus is viable - if the foetus will not survive as a child there is no justification for bringing it to term. It won't be prevented from going to heaven, it won't miss out on life and the only outcome will be much suffering being prevented.

What cannot be relevant to their position is:
The age of the mother (beyond what might cause a danger to her life) - whether the mother is 10 or 50, terminating the foetus is still murdering a child from their perspective.

The circumstances of conception - Unless, as I said, they're willing to cop to hating women and believing that women deserve the punishment of childbirth for having sex, then how the conception came about is neither here nor there.
Some pro-lifers are actually happy to set this position out, but they're really fire and brimstone, young-earth creationist level people and I'm confident they're not a considerable enough proportion of the population in this country to be worth worrying about. They believe all sorts of ****e and we can't waste our time worrying about their nonsense when there's reasonable (if IMO wrongheaded) people to be swayed.

The progress of the pregnancy - if you're defining a child as being created at conception then whether it's a blob or viable and deliverable, the only situation where it wouldn't amount to murder would be in the circumstances referred to above.

Mousewar · 10-11-2017 10:04PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wrote..

Thanks for the response. I debated with you before and the conclusion I reached then was that our view of the world and of language itself was so fundamentally different that it was literally impossible for us to understand each other. So I'll leave my comment as it is for the sake of a different viewpoint without defending it any further, a viewpoint that isn't seeking to denounce anyone's decision btw.

Roger Hassenforder · 10-11-2017 10:10PM

Mousewar wrote: »

the idea of only pursuing a pregnancy that would result in the 'healthiest child possible' seems...well, it's troubling to me.

isnt immunization also only pursuing a healthiest person possible though, using science to obviate health risks (albeit infectious rather than genetic), to ensure optimum quality of life or as healthy a person as possible? is this not the same rationale, only prenatal/preconception?

Amileinmyshoes · 10-11-2017 10:19PM

I've been reading this thread all day as a regular user and contemplating posting this reply. I've opted to open this new account to share my experience of this issue, mods/admins, I hope thats ok, given the sensitive nature of what Im about to post then Im sure you will understand. What Im going to post is something Ive only ever told one other person about and that I will most likely never tell anyone else about, barring a set of circumstances arising that places someone else in the situation I found myself in a couple of years ago.

In mid 2015 my partner and I fell pregnant (Im a guy). It was a surprise pregnancy but certainly a most wanted one. We had known we wanted to have a family together so nature decided that it was going to happen a little sooner than we had anticipated but such is life.

Everything went well for the first few weeks. Herself was in good health, didnt suffer badly with any morning sickness etc and all things considered it was as relaxed and uneventful first trimester. All that changed when we went in for the 12 week scan.

We arrived at the hospital the day of the scan as happy as Larry. We had flights booked for a short weekend break the following day so that was going to be our little celebration for us and our impending family. We went to the ultrasound room with the nurses and doctor and the scan started. I was blissfully oblivious looking at the screen, hearing our babys heartbeat and thinking about the future. My wife however was looking at the obstetrician and she told me after that she knew from his expression that something was not as it should be.

He took a breath and began to explain that what he was seeing was called a cystic hygroma. Its basically a sac that develops around the foetus within the womb and most of the time it means that the foetus has some form of abnormality which could range from Turners syndrome to downs. In some cases the foetus would not make it to term. There are cases where it turns out to be harmless and the foetus develops as normal and the baby is born healthy but they are the exception rather than the rule. He explained that there was a test we could have where they extracted some fluid from the placenta and it was sent to the UK for analysis and that would tell us what, if anything was wrong with our baby. We got this news on a Friday morning and immediately decided we would have the test done at the earliest juncture which was the following Monday morning.

Devastated does not even come close to describing how we felt. I just about held things together and managed to drive us home but as soon as the front door closed I damn near collapsed and sobbed uncontrollably.

Why did this have to happen to us?

We weren't bad people.

We lead good lives and don't screw anyone over, how is this fair?

We spent the weekend in a bit of a haze, researching hygromas and the possible consequences. She told her best friend and her sisters who were immensely supportive.

We went in on the Monday morning and the test was carried out. It was invasive and uncomfortable for her and I felt so helpless, so lost. We were told that it would take 4 to 5 days for the results to come in.

We went home and cried, and comforted each other, and cried some more.

After 5 agonising days we got a call from the obstetrician on the Friday evening to tell us that the results had come back for downs. We asked was it possible there was a mistake with the diagnosis but were told that the test was in the region of 99.99% accurate.

It felt like our whole world caved in. Here we were, one week thinking about the future and names for our child to 7 days later being told that if the pregnancy did go to term that our baby would never have a normal life.

We had another appointment with the obstetrician the following Monday to discuss things in person. I have to say, we felt he was incredibly cold about the whole thing. I understand that he has to deal with this kind of thing regularly but I felt he didnt show us a shred of empathy. He literally said "if you are going to go to the UK then I would suggest doing it sooner rather than later" and that was pretty much that as far as he went. I must say, the nurse in the Coombe that we had gotten friendly with on a previous visit was an absolute angel, she was so kind to us. We were two adults but felt as lost and helpless as a child in a car park and she did her absolute best to make us feel better about the decision we faced.

We went home and immediately began to think about our options.

Will the pregnancy go to term?

Could we handle a child with special needs?

What if something happened to us, who would look after them? Our parents would most likely be gone, our siblings are scattered, would we want them to end up in a home with nobody to love them?

After much soul searching we made the decision that we would travel to the UK to have a abortion. This was without a doubt, the hardest thing that either have ever had to do and i would not wish that decision onto my worst enemy. We felt like common criminals, surreptitiously booking flights to London, making excuses to get out of work and trying to arrange accommodation and how to get to the clinic and back again. I'd never been to London so didnt have a clue where to start. The staff in the clinic were were quite blase about the whole thing but of course, we were just another patient for them.

We made the appointment for the morning and booked flights over the evening before and back the morning after. I cannot put into words how it made us feel, like I said above, we felt like common criminals which considering what we were already going through made the whole thing that much worse.

I'm not going to give any more details but suffice to say, it was the single most draining, life changing experience we have ever gone through. Our hearts were broken but we had to go back and spend the night in a dingy hotel near the airport and wait for our flight home.

In the weeks and months after we attended a wonderful grief counsellor in the Coombe, a lady that had more empathy and care for us in the finger nail of her pinky than the obstetrician had in his entire body.

We found out the sex of our baby, it was a boy so we picked a name and had a naming ceremony for him with another wonderful lady in the chaplaincy in the Coombe. Im sure some will think us hypocritical for doing that, hell, I sometimes think it myself, but it was something we had to do.

We did not take the decision lightly, it was not some flippant, "a la carte" abortion, it was a decision that neither of us ever contemplated having to make and that nobody deserves to have to make.

It is something that we both think of on a daily basis and that we will carry with us until the day we die.

We have both always been and always will be pro choice, when the referendum comes we will both vote yes to repeal.

Do we question our decision?

Yes, absolutely, but we made it based on what we knew at the time and what we felt was the best thing to do, for both our baby and for us.

Do I feel guilty about it?

Sometimes, yes. When I see a person or a child with downs I get a gut punch and a wave of almost shameful feeling. Call it a throwback to good old Catholic guilt if you will.

If we were faced with the same decision tomorrow would we do the same thing?

Hand on heart, I dont know. The experience was so dreadful that I dont know if her or I could go through it again. We are both however in complete agreement that it was made infinitely more difficult by not having the facility available in this country.

Since then we were lucky enough to have a healthy baby and on that pregnancy, we had the harmony test done which thankfully came back clear and our little one is thriving.

Its very clear to me that those spouting crap on here have never been in the situation we found ourselves in and I genuinely hope for their sake they never do.

Finally, I just want to say thank you to most of the posters in here. You have absolutely no idea how much comfort I have taken from the majority of the responses and it has given me immense peace that if faced with this most heart breaking of choices that many of you would make the same decision we did.

I'm closing this account now but I hope it gives you some little insight into the issue.

Its certainly opened my eyes.

January · 10-11-2017 10:32PM

I won't quote your post but thank you for telling us about your journey.

SusieBlue · 10-11-2017 10:37PM

Also not going to quote but I'm in tears reading that. You and your partner are such strong people. I can't even begin to imagine how ye must feel.
I wish you and your family peace and happiness, thank you for sharing your story.

Akrasia · 10-11-2017 11:09PM

Gbear wrote: »

But the reason it's not a valid argument isn't because "not everyone deserves to get pregnant".

The issue is that the "personal responsiblity" notion is nonsense to begin with and it's born of them being, well, judgemental arses.

Your line of counter-argument looks to me an awful lot like trying to shame someone who's pro-life into being pro-choice by labelling them as rape apologists when, really, how the child was conceived shouldn't be relevant to their argument.

Honestly, it's not about trying to shame anyone. Its about showing them a new perspective. It they can figure out that there are some circumstances where it's absolutely not appropriate to blame the woman, it opens the door to them realising that there are many personal circumstances where 'personal responsibility' isn't a good argument. Also, it changes the value of the mothers welfare when compared with a fetus.

Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

Comments