Richard Dawkins: Immoral not to abort a fetus with Down's

[It'sFunToRun]

Your locations were removed because I deleted them, not because you thought better of them and felt sorry.

You only erased my very first one and the "Sparta" one. I seemed to be getting away with the sexually explicit ones, but I erased my last one like a day or two ago because I felt bad.

[It'sFunToRun]

So the sin of lying is the next one that needs to be discussed. :lol:

I'm hoping that this poster is very, very young so that there is a bigger chance she will grow out of thinking this way about an entire group of people.

I'd say I'm "young", but not "very, very young". Old enough to know better, young enough not to care ;)

[It'sFunToRun]

It's super easy to add someone to your Foe List, and you never have to see their posts again!

1. click on the username of the person you want to foe

2. click on "Add foe"

3. profit*

*profit in this case means "live a life free from trollish bigotry"

Not true, you still have to learn to deal with it in real life. Nevertheless, I recommend this option for people who get their jimmies rustled easily. It's possible to change yourself (or your settings); it's not possible to change everyone else :D

[happy atheist]

Aww... Happy Atheist, I had clicked on here hoping you had replied to my post on the idea that we can have fundamentalist atheists. I was hoping for your take!

I didn't actually see that comment. I'm only in here because there are posts awaiting approval.

IMO the worst kind of atheists are the ones who won't shut up about (lack of) religion. It does become its own religion.

The best part about being an atheist is that I don't have to worry about any of that stuff. I don't go to meetings, I don't sit around and talk about how much I don't believe in god. I just don't believe. That's all. It's pretty simple, really. I also don't sit around talking about how much I don't believe the earth is flat and how much I don't believe in ghosts or bigfoot or Nessie. I have better things to do.

[nelliebelle1197]

I didn't actually see that comment. I'm only in here because there are posts awaiting approval.

IMO the worst kind of atheists are the ones who won't shut up about (lack of) religion. It does become its own religion.

The best part about being an atheist is that I don't have to worry about any of that stuff. I don't go to meetings, I don't sit around and talk about how much I don't believe in god. I just don't believe. That's all. It's pretty simple, really. I also don't sit around talking about how much I don't believe the earth is flat and how much I don't believe in ghosts or bigfoot or Nessie. I have better things to do.

This is basically what I said to my friend when we were discussing the possibly of her continuing her relationship with that dude. THAT is atheism; having services and meetings to discuss your beliefs is...church! His belief system was really the reason she broke up with him

[Coconut Flan]

I call them devout atheists. My dearly departed husband converted to that the last decade or so of his life. It was different. I used to point out to him that his vehemence on trying to convert people to his belief system didn't quite match his alleged unbelief system.

[nelliebelle1197]

I call them devout atheists. My dearly departed husband converted to that the last decade or so of his life. It was different. I used to point out to him that his vehemence on trying to convert people to his belief system didn't quite match his alleged unbelief system.

How did he react to that?

[nausicaa]

I've long found Richard Dawkins to be an elitist douche who has quite a few anti-woman beliefs. Who can forget elevator-gate and how he told women to just get over it since they weren't as bad off as women in Afghanistan? :angry-banghead:

[Coconut Flan]

How did he react to that?

That and a couple of other things I pointed out to him got him to quit trying to convert the kids and me and to quit saying things to the neighbors.

[Curious]

You only erased my very first one and the "Sparta" one. I seemed to be getting away with the sexually explicit ones, but I erased my last one like a day or two ago because I felt bad.

This may come as a shock, but we have other things to do every day besides refresh you profile constantly to see what you have in your location, so I'm sure you probably "got away" with several that we would not have approved of.

That is not exactly mature behavior or making a good case for your trustworthiness, just FYI.

[Curious]

I don't mean to keep hijacking this thread, but I need to address Curious and Happy Atheist and I don't have another way:

Far be it from me to tell you how to do your jobs, but I've noticed a lot of lack of/failure of communication on this website regarding rules and discipline. For instance, only by reading this post did I learn that I'm in JTTH because of the "wide stance" post. First I had assumed it was for not giving a warning for an explicit picture, because I saw that a mod had edited that, and I remember it was one of the rules, so it made sense. I also noticed that my location had been erased, but there was no explanation so I thought maybe it happens automatically in JTTH, so I put it back up; only when I got an email from Happy Atheist with the subject "location" (I assume you know that in JTTH you can't read private messages, only see the subject) did I realize that the location had upset the admins.

If I don't know what is upsetting you, I'm probably not going to change it. If I didn't see this, I would have assumed it was fine to joke about babies having a "wide stance", but now that I know it is a no-no, I won't do it again. Unlike in real life :lol: I'm actually quite obedient on FJ, but it only works if you communicate. Also, there's no reason not to let me out of JTTH now.

I will contact you privately about this. When the forum software said that members always receive PMs from Admins (even when the option is set to no, for example) we foolishly believed that to be the case.

[It'sFunToRun]

This may come as a shock, but we have other things to do every day besides refresh you profile constantly to see what you have in your location, so I'm sure you probably "got away" with several that we would not have approved of.

That is not exactly mature behavior or making a good case for your trustworthiness, just FYI.

My point was that writing "on my back" or "in grandma Mary's bed" wasn't breaking the rules, but I stopped doing it anyway because it was pushing the boundaries and I felt bad about that.

[browncoatslytherin]

I didn't actually see that comment. I'm only in here because there are posts awaiting approval.

IMO the worst kind of atheists are the ones who won't shut up about (lack of) religion. It does become its own religion.

The best part about being an atheist is that I don't have to worry about any of that stuff. I don't go to meetings, I don't sit around and talk about how much I don't believe in god. I just don't believe. That's all. It's pretty simple, really. I also don't sit around talking about how much I don't believe the earth is flat and how much I don't believe in ghosts or bigfoot or Nessie. I have better things to do.

happy atheist...i really, really like you. i pretty much have the same feelings, though i'm a polytheistic pagan. but i don't go to meetings, if i do any rituals it's because i want to, not because i feel i have to or i'm told to. i don't preach any of my beliefs, unless someone wants to ask about them or talk about it. my life has become less stressful since now i don't have to worry about "church" and all the drama bullshit that tends to crop up when a group of holly rollers get together*

*personal experience only is expressed, yours may vary

[Curious]

My point was that writing "on my back" or "in grandma Mary's bed" wasn't breaking the rules, but I stopped doing it anyway because it was pushing the boundaries and I felt bad about that.

In case you don't regularly read the email address on your account, I sent an email there with some info about better communication on the forum (you just need to read that initial email, please).

[Mama Mia]

Here's something that really befuddles me: about 90% of women who find out that they are pregnant with a fetus with Down Syndrome abort it, but only about 50% (even less) of American women are pro-choice. That means that around 40% of women with a diagnosed fetus find Down Syndrome to be so unacceptable that they go against their own beliefs to abort it. That makes me think that deep down most people feel about the same way that I do about Down Syndrome, but they just drown those feelings in political correctness until the issue hits home.

I'd be interested to hear how other people interpret that.

I think those statistics are misleading. I'm not saying intentionally misleading, just that they are more complicated than they look at first glance.

If you ask American women their opinions regarding abortion most polls do show that roughly 50% of individuals questioned will be pro-choice and 50% pro-life ( I know some people don't like the pro-life term-but it's just easier for this discussion). But that even split only holds true when the question is asked in very broad yes/no terms.

Once the questions become more specific the percentages change significantly in either direction. I don't feel like digging up the specific polls and percentages at the moment, so these are just random examples-- you can find the actual numbers on any big neutral site.

So you have a basic 50/50 split when just asked if abortion should be legal

But if asked :

"Should abortion be legal and available if the mothers life is in danger" the number who agree jumps to over 90%.

The number who think that abortion should be legal in cases of severe fetal abnormality jumps to 60-90% depending on the phrasing.

Similarly the percentages will drop to 10-30% if asked "should elective abortion be legal past 20 weeks"

Or only 25% will agree that abortion should be legal for sex selection.

Again, these are random examples - not the actual numbers- but the point is people's answers to their beliefs regarding abortion change when more specific questions are asked.

The 90% of fetuses who are known to have Downs Syndrome will be aborted statistic is also more complicated than it looks.

The initial screen for Downs also screens for several other possible abnormalities- - including anencepholy and spina bifida, and is notorious for having a high false positive rate -- scaring the hell out of people, often needlessly. It also tests in terms of odds of their being an abnormality - and a " positive" is seen as a 1 in 250 chance.

If someone has a high score on the initial test, further testing will be done, but it is very unlikely that a woman would have a definitive answer to the question of whether the fetus definitely has Down's syndrome until at least 18-20 weeks into the pregnancy., and often later.

Many women will decline either the initial screen or further testing -- for a number of reasons

1) they are low risk and don't want to put themselves through the stress and expense for an unlikely situation.

2) they firmly believe the outcome of the test wouldn't change anything because they would continue the pregnancy either way.

3) they might terminate the pregnancy if the information could be obtained sooner- but don't feel comfortable terminating that far into the pregnancy, so don't want to continue testing.

Another factor is that it isn't a decision made in a vacuum. The woman may want to continue the pregnancy, but feel she doesn't have the financial or emotional capacity to care for a special needs child. Especially if her partner wants a termination, or her own health is bad, or she has no family resources. Given that the likelihood of carrying a child with Downs goes up exponentially with advanced maternal age this is even more likely that the mother would feel she wouldn't be able to provide the longer term care that may be required.

TL/DR

90% of pregnancies with an identified Down's syndrome fetus will end in termination -- but there is a great deal of self -selection out of testing, and a large majority of women when asked specifically about their opinions regarding availability of abortion for fetal abnormalities will be in favor of having the option.

So while there are a number of women who will change their minds when actually confronted with this particular situation , it isn't really as big of a disconnect as it appears on the surface.

[It'sFunToRun]

I think those statistics are misleading. I'm not saying intentionally misleading, just that they are more complicated than they look at first glance.

If you ask American women their opinions regarding abortion most polls do show that roughly 50% of individuals questioned will be pro-choice and 50% pro-life ( I know some people don't like the pro-life term-but it's just easier for this discussion). But that even split only holds true when the question is asked in very broad yes/no terms.

Once the questions become more specific the percentages change significantly in either direction. I don't feel like digging up the specific polls and percentages at the moment, so these are just random examples-- you can find the actual numbers on any big neutral site.

So you have a basic 50/50 split when just asked if abortion should be legal

But if asked :

"Should abortion be legal and available if the mothers life is in danger" the number who agree jumps to over 90%.

The number who think that abortion should be legal in cases of severe fetal abnormality jumps to 60-90% depending on the phrasing.

Similarly the percentages will drop to 10-30% if asked "should elective abortion be legal past 20 weeks"

Or only 25% will agree that abortion should be legal for sex selection.

Again, these are random examples - not the actual numbers- but the point is people's answers to their beliefs regarding abortion change when more specific questions are asked.

The 90% of fetuses who are known to have Downs Syndrome will be aborted statistic is also more complicated than it looks.

The initial screen for Downs also screens for several other possible abnormalities- - including anencepholy and spina bifida, and is notorious for having a high false positive rate -- scaring the hell out of people, often needlessly. It also tests in terms of odds of their being an abnormality - and a " positive" is seen as a 1 in 250 chance.

If someone has a high score on the initial test, further testing will be done, but it is very unlikely that a woman would have a definitive answer to the question of whether the fetus definitely has Down's syndrome until at least 18-20 weeks into the pregnancy., and often later.

Many women will decline either the initial screen or further testing -- for a number of reasons

1) they are low risk and don't want to put themselves through the stress and expense for an unlikely situation.

2) they firmly believe the outcome of the test wouldn't change anything because they would continue the pregnancy either way.

3) they might terminate the pregnancy if the information could be obtained sooner- but don't feel comfortable terminating that far into the pregnancy, so don't want to continue testing.

Another factor is that it isn't a decision made in a vacuum. The woman may want to continue the pregnancy, but feel she doesn't have the financial or emotional capacity to care for a special needs child. Especially if her partner wants a termination, or her own health is bad, or she has no family resources. Given that the likelihood of carrying a child with Downs goes up exponentially with advanced maternal age this is even more likely that the mother would feel she wouldn't be able to provide the longer term care that may be required.

TL/DR

90% of pregnancies with an identified Down's syndrome fetus will end in termination -- but there is a great deal of self -selection out of testing, and a large majority of women when asked specifically about their opinions regarding availability of abortion for fetal abnormalities will be in favor of having the option.

So while there are a number of women who will change their minds when actually confronted with this particular situation , it isn't really as big of a disconnect as it appears on the surface.

Thank you for taking the time to explain that, it makes sense. I wonder how things will change in a few years when a simple blood test can diagnose Down Syndrome at ten weeks.

[momof2treasures]

Since Down's syndrome is genetic(chromosomal)that would be impossible. You need genetic material from the fetus. CVS can be done at 10 to 12 weeks but again, invasive and has risks.

[RachelB]

Dear Richard Dawkins,

You tedious shit-stirrer. Tell me again why it is *any* of your business whether a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term or not. Better yet, don't.

No love,

RachelB

P.S. Bite me.

[Curious]

TL/DR

90% of pregnancies with an identified Down's syndrome fetus will end in termination -- but there is a great deal of self -selection out of testing, and a large majority of women when asked specifically about their opinions regarding availability of abortion for fetal abnormalities will be in favor of having the option.

So while there are a number of women who will change their minds when actually confronted with this particular situation , it isn't really as big of a disconnect as it appears on the surface.

I snipped your post just because it was long. I'm glad you took the time to post this. I've never really looked into these kinds of surveys, but this was very interesting. It also rings very true to me.

I had a CT Scan when I was pregnant with my first child, who was much wanted and I had been on fertility drugs to conceive, though I actually conceived after stopping them because they didn't seem to be working...go figure.

I was not very pregnant...I didn't know I was pregnant at the time. We didn't think I could even get pregnant at that point without further intervention. So when it turned out that I was pregnant and had had the CT Scan my general practice physician from a small town (4,000 population) pretty much melted down and took me right along with him. He made it sound like IF the baby lived it would be some kind of 2 headed, green skinned monster that would never have any kind of quality of life. Right there in his office without even much thought I blurted out, schedule an abortion. I was 21 and knew there was NO way on this earth I was prepared for that kind of situation.

Fortunately, after I left his office and had time to think I called my fertility dr. and he was able to talk me down from the ledge. He got me in touch with a genetic counselor and she got all my records and talked to some other specialist and they figured out the exact amount of radiation the fetus would have been exposed to and a bunch of other things and determined that if I managed to carry the baby to 12 weeks, that things would be ok. Well as ok as they can ever be in a pregnancy anyway ;) If I lost the pregnancy before 12 weeks it was because there was catastrophic damage to the fetus (embryo? I'm not really sure when you make the distinction).

So it was a tense first trimester and not a particularly easy pregnancy (because I'm not an easy pregnancy person, it turns out), but I ended up with a beautiful baby at the end.

Before that happened, I always thought I was a "abortion is not for me, personally" kind of person, but you'd be surprised how much a PROFESSIONAL flipping out can pull you right along with them.

[It'sFunToRun]

Since Down's syndrome is genetic(chromosomal)that would be impossible. You need genetic material from the fetus. CVS can be done at 10 to 12 weeks but again, invasive and has risks.

Actually, there already exists a completely non invasive blood test (on the mother's blood) that is more accurate than CVS and can be done in the first trimester. The biggest problem is that it's more expensive, but I'm crossing my fingers that by the time I get pregnant the cost will go down. I'm super duper pro choice, but of course I'd much rather have a ten week abortion than a twenty four week abortion.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02 ... n-syndrome

Not surprisingly, there are certain people who don't want a woman to have the choice to abort such a fetus, so that might also be a factor slowing done the availability of the test.

[momof2treasures]

I think that this is interesting and I am surprised that I have never heard of it. I have done a lot of research on genetic testing because of my daughter who has a rare genetic disorder. If you read the article though, it says it's more accurate than a triple screen blood test which is standard not cvs. It produces less false positives so less women are getting cvs or amino that don't need it. You still need either to know for sure as the article states.A screening is not a diagnosis. It's still not an easy fix. I think what bothers me so much about this is that so many people think well duh it's so easy do xyz and this won't happen to my baby!

Another question I have is what is it about Down's syndrome specifically that so many people single out? It's not the worst or only diagnosis a baby can get. Is it just more well known?

[2xx1xy1JD]

Actually, there already exists a completely non invasive blood test (on the mother's blood) that is more accurate than CVS and can be done in the first trimester. The biggest problem is that it's more expensive, but I'm crossing my fingers that by the time I get pregnant the cost will go down. I'm super duper pro choice, but of course I'd much rather have a ten week abortion than a twenty four week abortion.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/02 ... n-syndrome

Not surprisingly, there are certain people who don't want a woman to have the choice to abort such a fetus, so that might also be a factor slowing done the availability of the test.

Interesting article BUT this is still just a screening test, and not a diagnostic test.

The current procedure is that pregnant women are given (unless they opt out) a test that screens a blood sample and an ultrasound of the fetus' neck, and then women who are at a statistically higher risk are called and offered an amnio. The amnio (or CVS) is what you need in order to make an accurate diagnosis, but it's invasive and carries a risk of miscarriage.

This new test is more accurate that the existing screening test. It is NOT more accurate than CVS. The new test accuracy is 45%, vs. 4.2% for the existing screening test. It would just mean that fewer women would get that call telling them that they are at increased risk and that fewer risky and invasive procedures would be done as a result. It does not eliminate the need for a diagnostic test if the result is positive.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I think that this is interesting and I am surprised that I have never heard of it. I have done a lot of research on genetic testing because of my daughter who has a rare genetic disorder. If you read the article though, it says it's more accurate than a triple screen blood test which is standard not cvs. It produces less false positives so less women are getting cvs or amino that don't need it. You still need either to know for sure as the article states.A screening is not a diagnosis. It's still not an easy fix. I think what bothers me so much about this is that so many people think well duh it's so easy do xyz and this won't happen to my baby!

Another question I have is what is it about Down's syndrome specifically that so many people single out? It's not the worst or only diagnosis a baby can get. Is it just more well known?

It might just be that it can be tested, while there is no prenatal testing for autism, mental illness, etc. Testing has also been around longer, so more people know about it.

[Maggie Mae]

I think that this is interesting and I am surprised that I have never heard of it. I have done a lot of research on genetic testing because of my daughter who has a rare genetic disorder. If you read the article though, it says it's more accurate than a triple screen blood test which is standard not cvs. It produces less false positives so less women are getting cvs or amino that don't need it. You still need either to know for sure as the article states.A screening is not a diagnosis. It's still not an easy fix. I think what bothers me so much about this is that so many people think well duh it's so easy do xyz and this won't happen to my baby!

Another question I have is what is it about Down's syndrome specifically that so many people single out? It's not the worst or only diagnosis a baby can get. Is it just more well known?

It's well known, and the media loves to show off high functioning Downs Syndrome youth & young adults as "inspirational."

The reality of Downs that I've seen runs the gamut, from the smiling, happy child who loves Arthur and thinks she can be an actress someday; to the angry adult who violently attacked my aunt who was helping him to find work. It's disgusting that the media has such a hard-on for Downs, because first of all, people with Downs are people, not necessarily "inspirational" stories, and second, because for every few smiling happy kid, there are adults in adult foster care who are NOT happy. The higher functioning they are, the more likely they are to know that they are "different" and people treat them differently. It's unfair. It's unfair to them, because it's not their fault. It's unfair to the caregivers who have to take care of adults with this disability once their family is worn out. It's unfair.

I'm not going to say that everyone should abort their fetus if it tests positive for Downs, but I'd like more people to see the reality. The divorce rate among couples who have disabled children is higher. The anger and frustration from adults living in foster care with Downs is awful. The parents who insist on taking care of their downs child as an adult are exhausted. It's not something I would want for my child, personally. And yes, not every disability can be tested for, but some can be tested for.

In other news about Downs, and why we shouldn't abort them - Medical Testing! (slight sarcasm, but I heard this article on NPR the other day and thought it was interesting and added another aspect to the "should we be compelled to abort or not" argument)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/08 ... s-research

[It'sFunToRun]

I think that this is interesting and I am surprised that I have never heard of it. I have done a lot of research on genetic testing because of my daughter who has a rare genetic disorder. If you read the article though, it says it's more accurate than a triple screen blood test which is standard not cvs. It produces less false positives so less women are getting cvs or amino that don't need it. You still need either to know for sure as the article states.A screening is not a diagnosis. It's still not an easy fix. I think what bothers me so much about this is that so many people think well duh it's so easy do xyz and this won't happen to my baby!

Another question I have is what is it about Down's syndrome specifically that so many people single out? It's not the worst or only diagnosis a baby can get. Is it just more well known?

You're right; I misunderstood the article.

Jewish people used to have a big problem with Tay Sachs, and they took care of that very efficiently, in my opinion. There is an organization called Dor Yeshorim ("upright generation") that:

{L_OFFTOPIC} :

is an organization that offers genetic screening to members of the worldwide Jewish community. Its objective is to minimize, and eventually eliminate, the incidence of genetic disorders common to Jewish people, such as Tay–Sachs disease.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews use a dating/courting system called "shidduchim" by which neither the boy nor the girl is allowed to ask the other out, instead a matchmaker suggests the match and if both agree they meet. Since around the 1970s when testing for carriers was invented, before going out, the boy and girl are tested and if both are carriers then the match is not made. Incidence of Tay-Sachs has since practically disappeared in these populations.

{L_OFFTOPIC} :

The success with Tay–Sachs disease has led Israel to become the first country that offers free genetic screening and counseling for all couples

Back to your question, I think Down Syndrome is more well known (most people probably went to school with one or more) and is able to be diagnosed in pregnancy. I don't know exactly what you mean by "not the worst" diagnosis; if I had to pick one or the other, I'd rather have a fetus with infantile Tay-Sachs; death is not the worst thing that can happen to a person.