Would you terminate a pregnancy if the pre-natal test was positive for DS?

[dw93]

Yes if it's relatively early (up to month 4 I guess). No if it's later.

[Oakvale]

Yes. Ignore, even, the realistic issues that parents have to face in that situation -
Down's Syndrome is a terrible life that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

[Cold War Liberal]

When my mom was pregnant with me, my parents were told that I was going to have down syndrome and abortion was put on the table. My mom chose not to terminate the pregnancy.

I was born without down syndrome.

If the fact that people with DS are people is somehow not enough, the fact that testing isn't accurate should be.

I am not against abortion. I am against abortion solely based on some possible negative disorder that the fetus may or may not even have.

[Oakvale]

When my mom was pregnant with me, my parents were told that I was going to have down syndrome and abortion was put on the table. My mom chose not to terminate the pregnancy.

I was born without down syndrome.

If the fact that people with DS are people is somehow not enough, the fact that testing isn't accurate should be.

I am not against abortion. I am against abortion solely based on some possible negative disorder that the fetus may or may not even have.

What reason do you think it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy, then?

[Cold War Liberal]

When my mom was pregnant with me, my parents were told that I was going to have down syndrome and abortion was put on the table. My mom chose not to terminate the pregnancy.

I was born without down syndrome.

If the fact that people with DS are people is somehow not enough, the fact that testing isn't accurate should be.

I am not against abortion. I am against abortion solely based on some possible negative disorder that the fetus may or may not even have.

What reason do you think it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy, then?

Let me be clear: I'm saying (or trying and possibly failing to say) that someone who wants a child and plans on carrying the fetus to term but then is faced with the possibility of having a baby with DS should not have an abortion solely based on that diagnosis due to it possibly being incorrect. If this hypothetical person still went through with an abortion, then I'd support her right to do so, even if I objected to her decision on moral grounds.

[dead0man]

If you are pro-choice and give people saying yes sh**t for saying yes, then you're an asshole and aren't really pro-choice.  The entire freaking point of "pro-choice" is to give the pregnant woman agency over her own body.  That's ok with you until a pregnant woman has a reason to do it you don't like?  eat poop

[Cashew]

If you are pro-choice and give people saying yes sh**t for saying yes, then you're an asshole and aren't really pro-choice.  The entire freaking point of "pro-choice" is to give the pregnant woman agency over her own body.  That's ok with you until a pregnant woman has a reason to do it you don't like?  eat poop

You can be pro-choice and pro public shaming simultaneously.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

And even for many pro-life people having a kid with down syndrome is enough for aboriton to be justifiable.

Then they aren't pro-life. 

[Oakvale]

When my mom was pregnant with me, my parents were told that I was going to have down syndrome and abortion was put on the table. My mom chose not to terminate the pregnancy.

I was born without down syndrome.

If the fact that people with DS are people is somehow not enough, the fact that testing isn't accurate should be.

I am not against abortion. I am against abortion solely based on some possible negative disorder that the fetus may or may not even have.

What reason do you think it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy, then?

Let me be clear: I'm saying (or trying and possibly failing to say) that someone who wants a child and plans on carrying the fetus to term but then is faced with the possibility of having a baby with DS should not have an abortion solely based on that diagnosis due to it possibly being incorrect. If this hypothetical person still went through with an abortion, then I'd support her right to do so, even if I objected to her decision on moral grounds.

Sure. But, to you, in what situation, then, is abortion not morally objectionable? Only accidental pregnancy or rape etc.?

[afleitch]

Increased and welcome acceptance of people with Downs Syndrome and other conditions leads people being more willing to have high risk pregnancies and reducing their likelihood in selectively terminating.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Need more Yes votes...

Why are you actively encouraging abortion?

Why would you keep a baby with down syndrome?

Ah, yes, the surplus population!

[HillGoose]

Why don't all the "yes" votes move to Nazi Germany? I mean, they really believed in that kind of thing there!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Aside from those of us who view abortion as murder, I don't think any of us can really answer this confidently.

[HillGoose]

all the 'yes' people should build an artificial island made of garbage in the ocean, name it Pen Island, move there, and found their own neo-fascist hellhole on it instead of pushing the notion that eugenics are okay on the rest of us.

[Figueira]

Aside from those of us who view abortion as murder, I don't think any of us can really answer this confidently.

This, unless there is someone here who has actually been in a situation to make this decision in real life.

[RINO Tom]

Increased and welcome acceptance of people with Downs Syndrome and other conditions leads people being more willing to have high risk pregnancies and reducing their likelihood in selectively terminating.

Please correct me if I'm wrong ... but assuming "high risk pregnancies" are universally viewed as a negative, it almost sounds like you're saying the acceptance of people with DS is a bad development?...

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'd like to think not. But better support for parents with these circumstances would be a welcome development.

[RINO Tom]

Aside from those of us who view abortion as murder, I don't think any of us can really answer this confidently.

Well, of course.  I am, at the end of the day, just saying that I would like to believe I wouldn't.  However, I think the alarmingly cold attitudes of some like the OP should be universally sickening REGARDLESS of what you would do, and it's sad that they're not.

[Illiniwek]

No, and the yes/no vote ratio, so far, hurts my heart.

[RFayette]

No, but also:

Aside from those of us who view abortion as murder, I don't think any of us can really answer this confidently.

I don't see this as any morally worse than an abortion in typical circumstances.  I think both are wrong obviously, but this isn't a special case in my mind.

[Lambsbread]

If you are pro-choice and give people saying yes sh**t for saying yes, then you're an asshole and aren't really pro-choice.  The entire freaking point of "pro-choice" is to give the pregnant woman agency over her own body.  That's ok with you until a pregnant woman has a reason to do it you don't like?  eat poop

This, honestly. We can talk about the moral reprehensibility of a woman choosing to terminate her pregnancy if the child would have down syndrome versus terminating any pregnancy in general, but this is what it comes down to. If you're pro-choice, or claim to be, you have to be comfortable with the notion that some women will make the difficult decision to terminate pregnancies under circumstances you don't necessarily agree with. Some people are not fit to be parents to a child with down syndrome. Sometimes the best thing to do for a child whose needs exceed what the parents are capable of giving is terminate the pregnancy. That's not to say down syndrome children aren't valid and that parents who choose to raise a down syndrome child are "abnormal", but some people are just simply not capable of it.

[DavidB.]

It's not a noble choice, but I'm afraid I would prefer my partner to terminate the pregnancy, as having the baby would make my own life, my partner's life and my child's life so difficult. I hope I will think differently about this difficult issue in the future, but I have to be honest here.

Lots of nasty responses on this very difficult subject as well, which shows some posters' immaturity.

[mvd10]

It's not a noble choice, but I'm afraid I would prefer my partner to terminate the pregnancy, as having the baby would make my own life, my partner's life and my child's life so difficult. I hope I will think differently about this difficult issue in the future, but I have to be honest here.

This

[Cold War Liberal]

When my mom was pregnant with me, my parents were told that I was going to have down syndrome and abortion was put on the table. My mom chose not to terminate the pregnancy.

I was born without down syndrome.

If the fact that people with DS are people is somehow not enough, the fact that testing isn't accurate should be.

I am not against abortion. I am against abortion solely based on some possible negative disorder that the fetus may or may not even have.

What reason do you think it's acceptable to terminate a pregnancy, then?

Let me be clear: I'm saying (or trying and possibly failing to say) that someone who wants a child and plans on carrying the fetus to term but then is faced with the possibility of having a baby with DS should not have an abortion solely based on that diagnosis due to it possibly being incorrect. If this hypothetical person still went through with an abortion, then I'd support her right to do so, even if I objected to her decision on moral grounds.

Sure. But, to you, in what situation, then, is abortion not morally objectionable? Only accidental pregnancy or rape etc.?

I don't really like abortion all that much. I'm not one of those who think it's murder (a fetus is not a person) but it has this quality about it that makes me slightly uncomfortable if it's not a fetus conceived of incest or rape or if the abortion isn't to save the mother etc. I wouldn't say that all abortion is "morally objectionable" to me but it's not exactly something I love. I'm much less OK with abortion after the fetus is viable, but that rarely ever happens, and if it does, it's almost always to save the mother, which is fine to me.

Every person has different morals. There's overlap, of course (most would say murder and rape are wrong, for example) but on things like abortion it's contentious. I wouldn't want other people forcing their morals on me with legislated equality (that would make my life as a gay man even more unpleasant than it already is) so why should I do the same to other people, especially since I'm a man and thus couldn't even have an abortion if I wanted to? I'm pro-choice because I don't want to take a woman's right to choose what she wants for her own body (the rights of the actual human being that is currently alive supersede the "rights" of the lump of cells that may or may not one day become a human), even if the choice she makes is one I disagree with. As R2D2 said in a post above:

If you're pro-choice, or claim to be, you have to be comfortable with the notion that some women will make the difficult decision to terminate pregnancies under circumstances you don't necessarily agree with.

[Mr. Morden]

If you are pro-choice and give people saying yes sh**t for saying yes, then you're an asshole and aren't really pro-choice.  The entire freaking point of "pro-choice" is to give the pregnant woman agency over her own body.  That's ok with you until a pregnant woman has a reason to do it you don't like?  eat poop

You don't think it's possible to think something should be legal, yet morally objectionable?