Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

lazygal · 03-11-2015 08:08PM

cattolico wrote: »

At 10 days it has the same DNA as 280 days. When does the child become a child?

Does the morning after pill kill a child?

robdonn · 03-11-2015 08:09PM

cattolico wrote: »

When does the child become a child?

When does someone become old?

oldrnwisr · 03-11-2015 08:13PM

cattolico wrote: »

At 10 days it has the same DNA as 280 days. When does the child become a child?

DNA is an insufficient criterion for establishing life. A corpse has DNA. My extracted wisdom tooth sitting in a jar on a shelf has DNA. Just because something has DNA doesn't make it alive.

So I'll ask once again. How is a 10 day old conceptus alive in the same way that a 280 day old foetus is alive? What criteria make the 10 day old conceptus alive?

Overheal · 03-11-2015 11:34PM

cattolico wrote: »

At 10 days it has the same DNA as 280 days. When does the child become a child?

My blood has the same DNA as me. Does that mean when i bleed I'm making liquid babies of myself?

Most breakdowns of human pregnancy don't even mention what happens at 10 days..

http://www.babycenter.com/pregnancy-week-by-week

A month in, you're looking that fell out of a chicken egg; nothing much more than an egg yolk. No organs to speak of, even.

cattolico wrote: »

The state does provide benefits to mothers here. They get free maternity care (which costs thousands in some countries).

That's great, but ignores the point being made: no child support money comes in when you are pregnant. As soon as the child is born, though, the maternity care kicks in, the child support kicks in - etc. If the State considered the fetus a child, it would issue child support money in the same way it would an infant. Does it?

lazygal wrote: »

Does the morning after pill kill a child?

...what happens if I eat one of those

robdonn wrote: »

When does someone become old?

How long is a piece of string?

Absolam · 04-11-2015 12:58AM

robdonn wrote: »

And at no point was I trying to refute that Irish jurisprudence uses the term, I was merely commenting, with the use of an analogy, on how it seems to me like an incorrect term to use.

So do you think unbaked bread is an incorrect term to use for proven dough?
I'd suggest there's room to say that either term is a correct term, just that one of them is one which tends to be opposed by those who feel it might be perjoritive to their position.

robdonn wrote: »

And I also at no point argued that receiving Child Benefit is a defining characteristic of anything. A child over the age of 15 is capable of full-time employment and therefore has the potential to provide whatever financial assistance (and more) that the government would normally provide. An unborn child is not, so why would a pregnant mother not receive Child Benefit towards the unborn child if it is considered a child by the State?

A child under the age of 15 is also capable of full-time employment and therefore has the potential to provide whatever financial assistance (and more) that the government would normally provide. So I don't think the facility to work is any better indicator of whether something is afforded the status of 'child' is it?

robdonn wrote: »

To be clear, I am not trying to spring a "gotcha!" I find it genuinely interesting and it could have a very simple explanation. If you have one then please share.

Of course it has a simple explanation; the State doesn't pay Child Benefit simply on the basis that something can be categorised as a child. It pays Child Benefit for children in specific (though very broad) circumstances.
However, if you feel it's unreasonable for the State to pay Child Benefit for born children whilst withholding it for unborn children, I'm guessing there are prospective mothers who'd back a candidate proposing to extend the payments in an election....

Absolam · 04-11-2015 01:00AM

cattolico wrote: »

The state does provide benefits to mothers here. They get free maternity care (which costs thousands in some countries).

True, but those benefits aren't actually called Child Benefit.

Nick Park · 04-11-2015 07:46AM

robdonn wrote: »

Hey Nick,

The section that you are quoting is not actually one of the principles as laid out by the Declaration. We've discussed this before (either in this thread or the Abortion thread in the Atheist/Agnostic forum) but I will try to summarise the discussion.

The line you quoted is part of the preamble of the Declaration, and is seen as an indication as to how the drafters intended it's interpretation but is not actually legally binding by any members that the Declaration applies to. It's sort of the 'default' position, but can be defined individually by each state.

However, the fact that it appears in the preamble, and is an indication of what the drafters intended, explodes the myth that human rights definitively do not start until the moment of birth (even if pro-abortion posters claim that they have told us this myth dozens of times).

Nick Park · 04-11-2015 08:02AM

Delirium wrote: »

Well that wasn't clear by your post, i.e. "you do if you abort them".
Granted it's a brief post but it doesn't clarify as you did above, and read as if you were suggesting that abortion at any stage of the pregnancy is killing a person.

So, would you agree or disagree then that an abortion at say, 2 weeks, would be killing a person?

I don't think any of us can say definitively (rather than dogmatically) exactly where personhood begins. Most people think it occurs at some stage in the womb. And therefore, I would advocate a safety first policy. Far better to assume an early stage than a later, on the same principle that I don't have even a few drinks before driving, rather than erring on the other side of caution and killing someone.

I don't see how they are they are the silent majority, as most of the pro-choice people I've seen post on abortion would fall into the "silent majority" as you call it.

In that case we have a serious problem. We have posters on here who vociferously argue that human rights don't start until the point of birth. If they truly believe, as you suggest, that personhood starts before birth, then we have posters here who deny that human rights should be afforded to all people.

When arguing against abortion, it's nearly always some extreme case that used to argue against it. Be it Gosnell or a child born without a brain who survived against all odds.

It's rarely the >90% of abortions that are discussed, which are before 13 weeks. Or if it is, then it's "abortion is killing a person" (with no qualification of a early part of pregnancy when it's not).

And when arguing for abortion, it's nearly always some extreme case where a baby has no brain, or the mother has been raped. Rarely are the >99% of abortions discussed where the baby should be able to live a fulfilling life and hasn't committed the crime of having a rapist as a dad.

Furthermore, in countries where abortion is permitted, one of the main categories of babies aborted are those with Down Syndrome. The test for this condition is normally carried out between 10 and 14 weeks -an area where a large number of both religious and nonreligious people believe we are well into the territory of personhood. And, in countries such as the US and the UK, where the disabled do not have the same constitutional protection as they do here, 95% of such babies are aborted.

So apologies if I took you up wrong Nick, but it's the first time I've seen someone arguing against abortion but not having conception/implantation as the point when personhood begins

I find that quite amazing, but in that case at least this thread has achieved something.

EoghanIRL · 04-11-2015 08:30AM

Very difficult to establish when person hood begins. I'd imagine there would never be a unanimously accepted definition.
I have heard a wide variation.

Kev W · 04-11-2015 08:54AM

Nick Park wrote: »

In that case we have a serious problem. We have posters on here who vociferously argue that human rights don't start until the point of birth. If they truly believe, as you suggest, that personhood starts before birth, then we have posters here who deny that human rights should be afforded to all people.

I see what you did there. Stating that human rights don't start until the point of birth is not the same as stating that personhood starts before birth. In fact if anything they are diametrically opposite views.

And when arguing for abortion, it's nearly always some extreme case where a baby has no brain, or the mother has been raped. Rarely are the >99% of abortions discussed where the baby should be able to live a fulfilling life and hasn't committed the crime of having a rapist as a dad.

Can you provide a source for that number?

Furthermore, in countries where abortion is permitted, one of the main categories of babies aborted are those with Down Syndrome. The test for this condition is normally carried out between 10 and 14 weeks -an area where a large number of both religious and nonreligious people believe we are well into the territory of personhood. And, in countries such as the US and the UK, where the disabled do not have the same constitutional protection as they do here, 95% of such babies are aborted.

Can you provide a source for those numbers?

Delirium · 04-11-2015 08:57AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think any of us can say definitively (rather than dogmatically) exactly where personhood begins. Most people think it occurs at some stage in the womb. And therefore, I would advocate a safety first policy. Far better to assume an early stage than a later, on the same principle that I don't have even a few drinks before driving, rather than erring on the other side of caution and killing someone.

The analogy falls down somewhat as not drinking would line up with not having an abortion. But I get what you're saying.

I'd agree about personhood though, which is why I try to figure out what physical requirements are necessary to meet my understanding of personhood. Lack of a brain would rule them out for example, yet we've had a poster argue that just having human DNA is sufficient for personhood.

In that case we have a serious problem. We have posters on here who vociferously argue that human rights don't start until the point of birth. If they truly believe, as you suggest, that personhood starts before birth, then we have posters here who deny that human rights should be afforded to all people.

I haven't seen any of them state when personhood begins so I don't know if this contradicts their stance personhood vs. human rights of unborn.

Most of the posters on the pro-choice side I've seen have been arguing for abortions up to 12 weeks ( or earlier given their generalisation of the foetus as 'clump of cells').

And when arguing for abortion, it's nearly always some extreme case where a baby has no brain, or the mother has been raped. Rarely are the >99% of abortions discussed where the baby should be able to live a fulfilling life and hasn't committed the crime of having a rapist as a dad.

But that's because it's usually an absolutist on the pro-life side responding, i.e "no abortions ever/ only if woman may die as a result". So the extremes get rolled out to see if any of them would be considered okay by said pro-life person.

Furthermore, in countries where abortion is permitted, one of the main categories of babies aborted are those with Down Syndrome. The test for this condition is normally carried out between 10 and 14 weeks -an area where a large number of both religious and nonreligious people believe we are well into the territory of personhood. And, in countries such as the US and the UK, where the disabled do not have the same constitutional protection as they do here, 95% of such babies are aborted.

But if a person supports abortion (for any reason) at the time in the pregnancy, then it's somewhat hypocritical to then say "unless it's Down Syndrome is detected".

It's something everyone in the debate has to contend with, consequences of a decision they may not like but within the parameters of the model they support.

I find that quite amazing, but in that case at least this thread has achieved something.

Hurrah!!

Nick Park · 04-11-2015 09:40AM

Kev W wrote: »

I see what you did there. Stating that human rights don't start until the point of birth is not the same as stating that personhood starts before birth. In fact if anything they are diametrically opposite views.

I didn't say that they were the same. They should be - but obviously they are not for those who wish to deny some people human rights.

Kev W · 04-11-2015 09:44AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I didn't say that they were the same. They should be - but obviously they are not for those who wish to deny some people human rights.

How can you say that two completely opposing statements should be considered the same?
The following would certainly imply that you believe they are the same, as you use them interchangeably:

Nick Park wrote: »

In that case we have a serious problem. We have posters on here who vociferously argue that human rights don't start until the point of birth. If they truly believe, as you suggest, that personhood starts before birth, then we have posters here who deny that human rights should be afforded to all people.

Nick Park · 04-11-2015 10:17AM

Kev W wrote: »

How can you say that two completely opposing statements should be considered the same?
The following would certainly imply that you believe they are the same, as you use them interchangeably:

Sorry, reading and typing in between work projects and I missed a 'not' in a previous post.

To clarify.

Believing when personhood begins, and believing when human rights should be afforded, are, of course, two separate concepts.

I believe that the people included in both concepts should be identical. If you believe someone has attained personhood then, I believe, they should thereby be accorded human rights.

Delerium stated that most "pro-choice" posters fall into the silent majority I referred to earlier - namely those who would see personhood as starting after conception/implantation but before birth.

That, for me, creates a problem in that we are seeing it argued, pretty vociferously, that human rights only begin at birth. That leaves two possible conclusions:
a) Delerium is wrong, and many "pro-choice" posters do not see personhood as being attained before birth.
b) We have posters who would deny human rights to some of those whom they acknowledge to be people.

The first alternative, that Delerium is wrong, wouldn't bother me at all. the second alternative makes me want to weep for our society.

oldrnwisr · 04-11-2015 10:19AM

Nick Park wrote: »

However, the fact that it appears in the preamble, and is an indication of what the drafters intended, explodes the myth that human rights definitively do not start until the moment of birth (even if pro-abortion posters claim that they have told us this myth dozens of times).

In the case of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child we don't need to rely on the preamble to see what the intentions of the drafters were. We have the working papers available which show the deliberations which went in to deciding the wording. As far as personhood goes, the Convention is deliberately vague and does not take a position on personhood. The Convention expressly worded the Convention to be ambiguous so that as many countries as possible would ratify the treaty. The original text of Article 1 was far less ambiguous:

"According to the present Convention a child is every human being from the moment of his birth to the age of 18 unless, under the laws of his state, he has attained his age of majority earlier."

The Convention sought to allow each country to interpret the terms of the Convention in accordance with their own laws and so the wording was made more ambiguous.

You can read the negotiations and preparatory documents here:

Sharon Detrick, ed., The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide to the ‘Travaux Preparatoires’;Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, London, 1992

Jonathan Todres and Louise N. Howe, “What the Convention on the Rights of the Child Says (and Doesn’t Say) About Abortion and Family Planning,” in The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child , by Jonathan Todres et al., Transnational Publishers, Inc., 2006, pp. 163-175; and

Sharon Detrick, A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, 1999, pp. 133-136.

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't think any of us can say definitively (rather than dogmatically) exactly where personhood begins. Most people think it occurs at some stage in the womb. And therefore, I would advocate a safety first policy. Far better to assume an early stage than a later, on the same principle that I don't have even a few drinks before driving, rather than erring on the other side of caution and killing someone.

Definitively? Probably not. But what we can do is weigh the different suggestions put forward and evaluate their scientific merit and how they balance the rights of the mother and the unborn. So extreme viewpoints like conception and birth as starting points for personhood are silly because they hold little scientific credence as well as shifting the balance of rights too far in one direction or the other.

Nick Park wrote: »

And when arguing for abortion, it's nearly always some extreme case where a baby has no brain, or the mother has been raped. Rarely are the >99% of abortions discussed where the baby should be able to live a fulfilling life and hasn't committed the crime of having a rapist as a dad.

I'm not sure exactly how you can make a claim like that Nick. Firstly, 97.5% of abortions are performed under ground C of the Act, not >99%. Secondly, 94% of abortions are performed at on or before 12 weeks, a point at which most foetal abnormalities are impossible to diagnose. Therefore you can't say that 99% of abortions are "where the baby should be able to live a fulfilling life". We don't know enough about those abortions to make that determination. Thirdly, the abortion statistics record the statutory grounds under which an abortion is performed. This means that we don't know how many abortions are performed on account of rape. This could be a lot or a little but in the absence of data its best not to make claims about the frequency.

Nick Park wrote: »

Furthermore, in countries where abortion is permitted, one of the main categories of babies aborted are those with Down Syndrome. The test for this condition is normally carried out between 10 and 14 weeks -an area where a large number of both religious and nonreligious people believe we are well into the territory of personhood. And, in countries such as the US and the UK, where the disabled do not have the same constitutional protection as they do here, 95% of such babies are aborted.

Again, no. Down's syndrom is nowhere near one of the main categories of babies aborted. In the UK in 2012, there were 185,122 abortions. Of this just 570 mentioned Down's syndrome. Of this group 544 were performed under ground E (foetal abnormality) with Down's syndrome listed as principal medical condition and a further 26 abortions were performed under other grounds with Down's syndrome mentioned in the case notes.

Also in 2012, there were 570 abortions performed for reasons of Down's syndrome. However, in 2012 there were 775 live births of Down's syndrome. So no 95% abortion rate.

robdonn · 04-11-2015 02:38PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Again, no. Down's syndrom is nowhere near one of the main categories of babies aborted. In the UK in 2012, there were 185,122 abortions. Of this just 570 mentioned Down's syndrome. Of this group 544 were performed under ground E (foetal abnormality) with Down's syndrome listed as principal medical condition and a further 26 abortions were performed under other grounds with Down's syndrome mentioned in the case notes.

Also in 2012, there were 570 abortions performed for reasons of Down's syndrome. However, in 2012 there were 775 live births of Down's syndrome. So no 95% abortion rate.

Just a minor correction on this data as it has come up in this discussion before. Due to a number of recording errors, including medical staff not knowing they had to fill out a particular form after a Ground E termination, I believe that the 570 number is incorrect and is actually 994.

So it's higher, and higher than the live birth rate, but your point stands that it is still not 95%, closer to 56%.

Source:
Matching Department of Health abortion notifications and data from the National Down’s Syndrome Cytogenetic Register and Recommendations for Improving Notification Compliance

oldrnwisr · 04-11-2015 02:42PM

robdonn wrote: »

Just a minor correction on this data as it has come up in this discussion before. Due to a number of recording errors, including medical staff not knowing they had to fill out a particular form after a Ground E termination, I believe that the 570 number is incorrect and is actually 994.

So it's higher, and higher than the live birth rate, but your point stands that it is still not 95%, closer to 56%.

Source:
Matching Department of Health abortion notifications and data from the National Down’s Syndrome Cytogenetic Register and Recommendations for Improving Notification Compliance

Thanks for the correction and the updated data. I wasn't aware of this report previously.

cattolico · 04-11-2015 08:09PM

"Jennifer Jorgensen, the Long Island, New York, woman who was convicted of manslaughter in the 2008 death of her six-day-old daughter, has won her appeal by arguing that her daughter was not yet a person."

This is where the road leads when you remove humans rights from the unborn child.

The Randy Riverbeast · 04-11-2015 08:16PM

She was pregnant at the time of the accident.It is a grey area and now they are calling for legislation to make it a bit clearer.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/pregnant-woman-who-drove-while-intoxicated-has-fetal-manslaughter-conviction-overturned/

frag420 · 04-11-2015 08:19PM

cattolico wrote: »

"Jennifer Jorgensen, the Long Island, New York, woman who was convicted of manslaughter in the 2008 death of her six-day-old daughter, has won her appeal by arguing that her daughter was not yet a person."

This is where the road leads when you remove humans rights from the unborn child.

Il just leave this here then.....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/24/fetuses-not-people-catholic-hospital-says-in-court-case/1863013/

cattolico · 04-11-2015 08:21PM

frag420 wrote: »

Il just leave this here then.....

Still wrong and changes nothing.

cattolico · 04-11-2015 08:23PM

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

She was pregnant at the time of the accident.It is a grey area and now they are calling for legislation to make it a bit clearer.

Grey area?? :eek: Apart from Being drunk while pregnant. I suppose her body he choice,, right?

The Randy Riverbeast · 04-11-2015 08:30PM

cattolico wrote: »

Still wrong and changes nothing.

Should probably let them know...

cattolico wrote: »

Yeah. Well us Christians don't treat kids or Anyone else as medical waste

cattolico wrote: »

Correct, respect for live is fundamental to Christianity.

cattolico wrote: »

Grey area?? Apart from Being drunk while pregnant. I suppose her body he choice,, right?

Yes, legally it is a grey area. The law and Catholic church in the US say that if you aren't born then you aren't a person. The accident happened while she was pregnant and then they delivered afterwards, 6 days letter the child died.
It even says in the article I linked (for some reason you didnt link an article so I'm guessing prolifenews.com left out this part) or it is possible you never read an article and just saw the headline.

Any imposition of criminal liability for actions of pregnant women where a child later dies from injuries suffered while in the womb needs to be clearly defined by lawmakers, Judge Eugene Pigott Jr. wrote. "It should also not be left to the whim of the prosecutor."
"Conceivably, one could find it 'reckless' for a pregnant woman to disregard her obstetrician's specific orders concerning bed rest; take prescription and/or illicit drugs; shovel a walkway; engage in a contact sport; carry groceries; or disregard dietary restrictions," Pigott wrote. "Such conduct, if it resulted in premature birth and subsequent death of the child, could result in criminal liability for the mother."
At present, that's not in New York's criminal law, Pigott wrote.

Delirium · 04-11-2015 08:33PM

cattolico wrote: »

"Jennifer Jorgensen, the Long Island, New York, woman who was convicted of manslaughter in the 2008 death of her six-day-old daughter, has won her appeal by arguing that her daughter was not yet a person."

This is where the road leads when you remove humans rights from the unborn child.

allowing for abortion will lead to pregnant women driving while drunk?

cattolico · 04-11-2015 08:35PM

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Should probably let them know...

Yes, legally it is a grey area. The law and Catholic church in the US say that if you aren't born then you aren't a person. The accident happened while she was pregnant and then they delivered afterwards, 6 days letter the child died.
It even says in the article I linked (for some reason you didnt link an article so I'm guessing prolifenews.com left out this part) or it is possible you never read an article and just saw the headline.

"Catholic church in the US say that if you aren't born then you aren't a person"

No the Catholic Church has NEVER said that the unborn is not a person.

Maybe you missed Pope Francis's speech to congress.

“The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development,”

The Randy Riverbeast · 04-11-2015 08:43PM

cattolico wrote: »

"Catholic church in the US say that if you aren't born then you aren't a person"

No the Catholic Church has NEVER said that the unborn is not a person.

Maybe you missed Pope Francis's speech to congress.

“The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development,”

I suppose the pope had to remind them considering their poor record. Hence the "in the US" part.

It is a shame that even so many followers of the pope aren't willing to protect and defend human life before implantation.

frag420 · 04-11-2015 08:51PM

cattolico wrote: »

Still wrong and changes nothing.

Care to elaborate? Are you saying the Catholic Church in America is Unchristian?

cattolico wrote: »

“The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development,”

So when does development stop? I would assume death right?

In which case are you as quick to protest against speeding/drunk drivers, the ills of alcohol abuse etc?

9% of people ages between 15-28 die from alcohol related causes - 320,000 young people!! Across all age groups its 2.5 million globally people dying through alcohol, are they not also gods children? I don't see you on any threads protesting about this or is it just the unborn you care about because development stops at birth.....right?

Delirium · 04-11-2015 08:52PM

cattolico wrote: »

"Catholic church in the US say that if you aren't born then you aren't a person"

No the Catholic Church has NEVER said that the unborn is not a person.

Maybe you missed Pope Francis's speech to congress.

“The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development,”

In Malpractice Case, Catholic Hosptial Argues Fetuses Aren't People

The organization’s mission, according to its promotional literature, is to “nurture the healing ministry of the Church” and to be guided by “fidelity to the Gospel.” Toward those ends, Catholic Health facilities seek to follow the Ethical and Religious Directives of the Catholic Church authored by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. Those rules have stirred controversy for decades, mainly for forbidding non-natural birth control and abortions. “Catholic health care ministry witnesses to the sanctity of life ‘from the moment of conception until death,'” the directives state. “The Church’s defense of life encompasses the unborn.”

But when it came to mounting a defense in the Stodghill case, Catholic Health’s lawyers effectively turned the Church directives on their head. Catholic organizations have for decades fought to change federal and state laws that fail to protect “unborn persons,” and Catholic Health’s lawyers in this case had the chance to set precedent bolstering anti-abortion legal arguments. Instead, they are arguing state law protects doctors from liability concerning unborn fetuses on grounds that those fetuses are not persons with legal rights.

That's the story that the poster was referring to I believe.

EDIT: also mentioned a few posts ago.

Nick Park · 04-11-2015 09:10PM

robdonn wrote: »

Just a minor correction on this data as it has come up in this discussion before. Due to a number of recording errors, including medical staff not knowing they had to fill out a particular form after a Ground E termination, I believe that the 570 number is incorrect and is actually 994.

So it's higher, and higher than the live birth rate, but your point stands that it is still not 95%, closer to 56%.

Source:
Matching Department of Health abortion notifications and data from the National Down’s Syndrome Cytogenetic Register and Recommendations for Improving Notification Compliance

No, you and oldrnwiser are both incorrect.

First of all, oldrnwiser has made the mistake of constructing a statistic by comparing the number of unborn babies diagnosed with DS with the number of babies born with DS. Sounds good, yes?

However, he/she has overlooked the fact that not all pregnant mothers take the diagnostic test. Therefore the numbers of children born with DS includes both diagnosed and undiagnosed antenatal cases.

Your own link, robdonn, if you read it carefully, not only demonstrates a massive underrecording of DS abortions, but actually reveals a very different statistic - that of 92% diagnosed cases aborted. There were 1178 cases of DS prediagnosed, of these 994 resulted in 'termination' while 184 were 'outcome unknown' (presumably carried to term.

You have made the mistake of accepting oldrnwiser's incorrect statistics and then, when you posted the link to the underreporting, amending his percentage instead of working the percentage out from your own link.

The figure of 92% is in line with other studies. The US National Library of Medicine cites a Europe-wide figure of 88% of all DS antenatal diagnoses resulting in abortion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2344123/

In Australia the figure is 95% http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/the-chosen-ones-australias-shrinking-number-of-down-syndrome-kids/story-fnet08ui-1226598360762

The Randy Riverbeast · 04-11-2015 09:21PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, you and oldrnwiser are both incorrect.

First of all, oldrnwiser has made the mistake of constructing a statistic by comparing the number of unborn babies diagnosed with DS with the number of babies born with DS. Sounds good, yes?

However, he/she has overlooked the fact that not all pregnant mothers take the diagnostic test. Therefore the numbers of children born with DS includes both diagnosed and undiagnosed antenatal cases.

Your own link, robdonn, if you read it carefully, not only demonstrates a massive underrecording of DS abortions, but actually reveals a very different statistic - that of 92% diagnosed cases aborted. There were 1178 cases of DS prediagnosed, of these 994 resulted in 'termination' while 184 were 'outcome unknown' (presumably carried to term.

You have made the mistake of accepting oldrnwiser's incorrect statistics and then, when you posted the link to the underreporting, amending his percentage instead of working the percentage out from your own link.

The figure of 92% is in line with other studies. The US National Library of Medicine cites a Europe-wide figure of 88% of all DS antenatal diagnoses resulting in abortion http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2344123/

In Australia the figure is 95% http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/the-chosen-ones-australias-shrinking-number-of-down-syndrome-kids/story-fnet08ui-1226598360762

You are suggesting that most people would abort if they knew the child has DS then, rather than most people who would abort take the test?

Is there something preventing the diagnosed from being tested before birth? I know a woman who was in her 40s decided not to take the test as it wouldnt have mattered to her.

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Comments