Aborting a Down Syndrome Twin at full term.

bear1 · 21-11-2014 02:09PM

Mark Tapley wrote: »

As you yourself pointed out thread is a load of shíte. So excuse me if I don't give your post the plaudits it so obviously deserves. No harm I suppose throwing in an irrelevant gross generalisation.

Fair point, hold my hands up. Removed that point.

21-11-2014 02:19PM

robman60 wrote: »

Isn't that even worse though? It's effectively saying infanticide is legal.

That's not my opinion!!!

It's just my summary of the radio show!

robinph · 21-11-2014 02:28PM

conorhal wrote: »

Oh, well that's alright so!

Infanticide is, it would seem, perfectly legal in the UK.

That sounded more like an equivalent of "turning off the machines" than anything else. Just that in this case they never got round to putting the baby on life support because it wouldn't have made it anyway so they try and reduce it's suffering as much as posible.

kylith · 21-11-2014 02:30PM

robman60 wrote: »

Maybe you should research a little better before dismissing what the OP said as ludicrous. Personally I think it's a disgusting practice. Even if only a small percentage of abortions occur this late, it's still horrible that it's allowed to happen.

Unfortunately some abnormalities can only be detected late in the pregnancy. Wouldn't it be more horrible to force a woman to have a child only to watch it die a short time later? Or to force her to rear a child who will have a miserable life, plagued with serious medical issues and pain?

PopePalpatine · 21-11-2014 02:33PM

kylith wrote: »

Unfortunately some abnormalities can only be detected late in the pregnancy. Wouldn't it be more horrible to force a woman to have a child only to watch it die a short time later? Or to force her to rear a child who will have a miserable life, plagued with serious medical issues and pain?

Don't you know that women are emotionless baby-making machines? :rolleyes:

Macavity. · 21-11-2014 02:36PM

urbanledge wrote: »

each to their own,
whats it got to do with you?

Jesus, if we all had this attitude it would make the forum pretty redundant.

kylith · 21-11-2014 02:49PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Don't you know that women are emotionless baby-making machines? :rolleyes:

See what happens when I get out of the kitchen? I get all kinds of mad ideas about women not being brood mares with no say about their bodies.

robman60 · 21-11-2014 03:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not my opinion!!!

It's just my summary of the radio show!

I realise that, and I didn't intend my post to seem like a response to you personally. People took your point as an end of discussion to some degree, but your post raised the harrowing point of potential infanticide.

kylith wrote: »

Unfortunately some abnormalities can only be detected late in the pregnancy. Wouldn't it be more horrible to force a woman to have a child only to watch it die a short time later? Or to force her to rear a child who will have a miserable life, plagued with serious medical issues and pain?

I'm aware that many of these conditions are only detected at the 20 week scan. Believe me, I am not cold-hearted and I realise that the women (and men, for that matter) at the centre of these cases are left in a terrible predicament. However, I think that permitting abortion until birth, even in these cases is equal to infanticide and that is something I could never condone.

As far as I know Down Syndrome sufferers have pretty decent life expectancy and many enjoy a good quality of life. I don't think the fact you will most likely face a more difficult life gives your parents the right to end your life.

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 03:42PM

seventeen sheep wrote: »

Why should I listen through an hour of irrelevant chat and music and ads and crap, to find evidence of something that YOU'RE trying to back up?

If you want to make a point, YOU provide some sort of substantial back-up for it.

And, by the way, somebody giving anecdotal evidence to a radio show presenter doesn't exactly count as substantial back-up anyways.

You see what you've done here? When I said "is this the case?" you read it as me saying "this is the case!"

Now that we've cleared up your little error do you actually know if this is the case? Do you even care ? I do, which is why I am trying to find out the truth.

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 03:45PM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

1hr 50 mins...a midwife (iirc) phones in to give her views, at 1 hr 54 a caller phones in to tell the story of d.s. twin.

worth starting at 1hr 50 and listen to both calls.

Thank you so much for making the effort. It's rather telling that nobody thanked your post for finding something that was there but others multithanked a post that couldn't find something that was there don't you think?

kylith · 21-11-2014 03:49PM

robman60 wrote: »

I'm aware that many of these conditions are only detected at the 20 week scan. Believe me, I am not cold-hearted and I realise that the women (and men, for that matter) at the centre of these cases are left in a terrible predicament. However, I think that permitting abortion until birth, even in these cases is equal to infanticide and that is something I could never condone.

In your opinion it may be infanticide but in law it is not. And I really don't understand how someone can believe that a foetus with fatal abnormalities can possibly be better off going through the trauma of birth and suffering and death rather than being terminated before birth and never knowing pain or suffering. Or how someone can honestly feel that the parents should be made to witness their child's short life. Personally forcing people to suffer like that is something I could never condone.

robman60 wrote: »

As far as I know Down Syndrome sufferers have pretty decent life expectancy and many enjoy a good quality of life. I don't think the fact you will most likely face a more difficult life gives your parents the right to end your life.

Many do, many don't. Some people with DS can live semi-independently and hold down jobs, some are very severely affected and will never be able to live anything approaching a normal life. Some have serious cardiac and gastric problems, some don't. The thing is that it's a lottery, afaik, they can tell that the foetus has DS but not how severe the DS will be.

seventeen sheep · 21-11-2014 03:51PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You see what you've done here? When I said "is this the case?" you read it as me saying "this is the case!"

Now that we've cleared up your little error do you actually know if this is the case? Do you even care ? I do, which is why I am trying to find out the truth.

I've heard pro-choicers want to abort healthy five-year-olds, is this the case?

See what I did there?

Nichololas · 21-11-2014 04:03PM

I heard in Germany it's legal to abort bad posters for up to 24 years outside the womb, even if their posts are only slightly bad. Does anyone know if this is true? It sounds great, and we should get it here

Delirium · 21-11-2014 04:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Mod

Rightio, so I listened to it.

There's an interview with a lady who gave birth at 23 weeks to a perfectly formed baby and thinks that as a result the abortion limit should be lowered from 24 weeks.

Later on (at 1:40 mins) a man called the show to say that when his wife was five months pregnant is was discovered that the child may not be healthy. At each check up afterwards, he stated she was offered and recommended a termination. At 8 months, two weeks before her planned caesarean section, her consultant recommended that she should consider termination. He informed her that she would be induced and have to give birth and in the event that the baby was born breathing, they would hand the baby over to the consultant who would end its life.

There is no mention of terminating a twin with downs syndrome.

The caller regarding the terminating of a twin explained that a woman had one of the twins diagnosed with possbile Downs Syndrome.

Doctors discussed abortion with the woman and it was explained that an abortion at that point in the pregnancy would potentially be fatal to the other twin. The abortion would have to be done at a later stage to give the other twin the best possible chance of survival.

The abortion would have been possible at the inital diagnosis if it hadn't been a multiple prengancy (i.e. twins).

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 04:04PM

seventeen sheep wrote: »

I've heard pro-choicers want to abort healthy five-year-olds, is this the case?

See what I did there?

Think so, was it an attempt to be clever to avoid answering fair and reasonable questions?

Packrat · 21-11-2014 04:08PM

seventeen sheep wrote: »

I've heard pro-choicers want to abort healthy five-year-olds, is this the case?

See what I did there?

Good man, shut down discussion on topics where someone has the temerity to disagree with the majority by using ridicule and personal attacks. No wonder this country is the way it is when to question the consensus is to open oneself up to this sh1t.

Apt username Sheep.

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 04:10PM

SW wrote: »

The caller regarding the terminating of a twin explained that a woman had one of the twins diagnosed with possbile Downs Syndrome.

Doctors discussed abortion with the woman and it was explained that an abortion at that point in the pregnancy would potentially be fatal to the other twin. The abortion would have to be done at a later stage to give the other twin the best possible chance of survival.

The abortion would have been possible at the inital diagnosis if it hadn't been a multiple prengancy (i.e. twins).

Thank for that summary. I have two questions for you because I trust you to answer honestly. Given the summary, would you agree that the thread title is accurate and this situation raises some moral and ethical questions?

seventeen sheep · 21-11-2014 04:24PM

Packrat wrote: »

Good man, shut down discussion on topics where someone has the temerity to disagree with the majority by using ridicule and personal attacks. No wonder this country is the way it is when to question the consensus is to open oneself up to this sh1t.

Apt username Sheep.

Good man? I amn't a man.

And I'm all for open discussion, when the person opening the debate has some solid facts to support their argument. For that matter, when the person HAS an argument.

In this case, it seems they think they heard something on the radio (which was later disproven, by those who actually made the effort to listen to the radio show - more than the OP did, at least!) From what those who have listened to it have posted, the OP completely misheard/misinterpreted/lied. We'll be kind and assume it's one of the first two.

What more is there to discuss? It's a non-issue, the entire thread is based on the OP's misunderstanding of what he thought he might have heard.

opiniated · 21-11-2014 04:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Mod

Rightio, so I listened to it.

There's an interview with a lady who gave birth at 23 weeks to a perfectly formed baby and thinks that as a result the abortion limit should be lowered from 24 weeks.

Later on (at 1:40 mins) a man called the show to say that when his wife was five months pregnant is was discovered that the child may not be healthy. At each check up afterwards, he stated she was offered and recommended a termination. At 8 months, two weeks before her planned caesarean section, her consultant recommended that she should consider termination. He informed her that she would be induced and have to give birth and in the event that the baby was born breathing, they would hand the baby over to the consultant who would end its life.

There is no mention of terminating a twin with downs syndrome.

:eek: That's horrendous. It's also infanticide.

SW wrote: »

The caller regarding the terminating of a twin explained that a woman had one of the twins diagnosed with possbile Downs Syndrome.

Doctors discussed abortion with the woman and it was explained that an abortion at that point in the pregnancy would potentially be fatal to the other twin. The abortion would have to be done at a later stage to give the other twin the best possible chance of survival.

The abortion would have been possible at the inital diagnosis if it hadn't been a multiple prengancy (i.e. twins).

To the best of my knowledge, Downs syndrome children do not suffer any pain.
Certainly, those that I know are extrememy happy children.
I am aware that it is challenging for parents to raise a child with a mental handicap.
The question is - do those difficulties give the parents the right to end that childs life?
IMO, the answer is a resounding "No".

One eyed Jack · 21-11-2014 04:35PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You see what you've done here? When I said "is this the case?" you read it as me saying "this is the case!"

Now that we've cleared up your little error do you actually know if this is the case? Do you even care ? I do, which is why I am trying to find out the truth.

Sure you are, in After Hours no less. Health Sciences wouldn't have occurred to you as a more suitable forum for such a question?

Your questions were answered on the first page (the one about other people's morality too?), and yet you expect other posters should be doing your research for you to prove your third hand anecdotes wrong?

Stop for jesus sake :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 04:44PM

seventeen sheep wrote: »

Good man? I amn't a man.

And I'm all for open discussion, when the person opening the debate has some solid facts to support their argument. For that matter, when the person HAS an argument.

In this case, it seems they think they heard something on the radio (which was later disproven, by those who actually made the effort to listen to the radio show - more than the OP did, at least!) From what those who have listened to it have posted, the OP completely misheard/misinterpreted/lied. We'll be kind and assume it's one of the first two.

What more is there to discuss? It's a non-issue, the entire thread is based on the OP's misunderstanding of what he thought he might have heard.

I'm going to interject here to save you any further embarrasment. It has been established by lucy8080 that the radio show did have a section on the thread topic. The precise timing has been given. Perhaps you might take a listen?

Fred Swanson · 21-11-2014 04:49PM

This post has been deleted.

seventeen sheep · 21-11-2014 04:51PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm going to interject here to save you any further embarrasment. It has been established by lucy8080 that the radio show did have a section on the thread topic. The precise timing has been given. Perhaps you might take a listen?

I have no reason to be embarrassed. The link proves you're talking crap. Downs Syndrome was (contrary to your assertions) never even mentioned at any stage.

And I did listen, thanks for the waste of my time, but at least it's more than you did!

dissed doc · 21-11-2014 04:58PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just been listening to a UK radio show and I was shocked to find out that when 1 one of the twins is diagnosed with potential downs an abortion will be offered to get rid of the "sick" twin. The problem is that an early abortion will put the "healthy" twin at risk so they need to carry out the abortion at close to full term at which stage he/she will be fully developed and there is a possibility that the aborted downs syndrome twin will come out alive and they would have to kill him/her outside the womb.

1) First of all is this the case? It sounds like a Third Reich horror story...
and 2) What are people's views on the morality of this?

Sounds more like Sweden until 2012 than the Third Reich. In fact, Sweden started the racial purity thing before the Third Reich and continued with compulsory sterilisation until recently.

Are you one of the We Love Scandinavia type of Irish person?

Brown Bomber · 21-11-2014 05:01PM

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah I was shocked. How can someone who does such things sleep at night? "so how was your day?", "oh ok, killed a DS baby but I got a seat on the train":

robinph · 21-11-2014 05:03PM

opiniated wrote: »

:eek: That's horrendous. It's also infanticide.

How is it horrendous? You have no details at all on the condition of the baby in that case on which to base that claim. Extremely unlikely that they did anything to kill the baby, they may have done something to ease its pain and suffering for the few moments it had to live once born.

Grayson · 21-11-2014 05:19PM

robinph wrote: »

How is it horrendous? You have no details at all on the condition of the baby in that case on which to base that claim. Extremely unlikely that they did anything to kill the baby, they may have done something to ease its pain and suffering for the few moments it had to live once born.

I was thinking that too. there's a difference between killing a baby and operating a don't resuscitate order.

Delirium · 21-11-2014 05:41PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank for that summary. I have two questions for you because I trust you to answer honestly. Given the summary, would you agree that the thread title is accurate

Yes, but it doesn't reflect the full story. By this I mean that the woman couldn't terminate the twin without endangering the other twin at the earlier stages of the pregnancy.

and this situation raises some moral and ethical questions?

The questions are still there even if it was a single pregnancy rather than twins. The only difference would be that the abortion would probably happen earlier.

BlaasForRafa · 21-11-2014 06:00PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm going to interject here to save you any further embarrasment. It has been established by lucy8080 that the radio show did have a section on the thread topic. The precise timing has been given. Perhaps you might take a listen?

A couple of callers into an english equivalent of Joe Duffy does not constitute credible evidence. Either you're too lazy to do some proper research yourself or you're trying to bait people, given your posting style I think we can guess which of those options is the case here.

volchitsa · 21-11-2014 06:11PM

SW wrote: »

Yes, but it doesn't reflect the full story. By this I mean that the woman couldn't terminate the twin without endangering the other twin at the earlier stages of the pregnancy.

The questions are still there even if it was a single pregnancy rather than twins. The only difference would be that the abortion would probably happen earlier.

There was also some mix up in what the OP said about an abortion of a twin with Downs and the man who learned they were expecting a child with hydrocephalus, a very painful condition, not simply Downs.

They feel there was pressure put on them to have an abortion, but it was because the baby's head was too swollen to allow normal birth without danger. The fact that they are against abortion is their right, as is the woman's right to put herself at risk - but the claim that the baby would then have been killed is definitely not proven.

That would be infanticide, if the baby is capable of independent life, and illegal. It's noticeable that it didn't actually happen, I think that is because the claim is simply wrong.

I also suspect that the way the OP refused to give any details which would have made this clear indicates that he didn't just "not know" as he claims but has been deliberately trying to mislead people.

Aborting a Down Syndrome Twin at full term.

Comments