To believe that Britain promotes eugenics.

[WriterofDreams]

I am aware this is going to be highly controversial and could upset some people but it's an issue that genuinely concerns me and I'm not just shit-stirring. I do expect to get flamed, but any reasonable argument or debate is very welcome.

I come from Ireland where abortion is illegal. I am fully aware that many Irish women go abroad for abortions so I'm not saying look how great we are we don't abort. However, until I moved to the UK I never heard of the practice of people testing their baby for anomalies and then aborting them if there was something wrong. It genuinely shocked me that a couple who tried to have a baby, went through the sometimes stressful process of ttc, got the longed-for bfp and then lived with the expectation of a baby for many weeks could then go and kill that baby because it had Down Syndrome or some other (non-lifethreatening) genetic condition. I have looked it up on a number of sites and extreme though it may appear I can't get past the feeling that this basically hidden eugenics.

What do you think?

Franca - where did you get your information about the Italian baby having more serious conditions? I haven't seen anything about that at all.

agree and sympathy ishtar

i had an abortion due to a less severe abnormality at 17 weeks - as soon as i knew i would give birth to a baby that would immediately go in for the first of many rounds of surgery directly after delivery - and imagined spending the first years of its life (optimistically! - the other alternative being that it would die...) seeing it in pain and subjected to invasive medical treatment....i decided on abortion. it was a condition described as 'readily fixable' by Drs..

i am glad it is left to mothers to decide what constitutes 'severe' as evidently Drs are very gung-ho about these things.
If another woman had chosen to keep their PG with a similar abnormality,i wouldn't have considered them to be making the wrong choice either.

incidentally, if my maternity referral hadn't taken 3 weeks to get through, that would have been less late too.

oh ffs WOD, you just want to be all worked up. It's already been established that that accounts for about 1% of abortions.
Don't seek to control what other people do when faced with difficult circumstances you haven't experienced.

Trying to 'save all de baybeees' is cruel to their mothers, who are human too. But the rosary beed clackers always forget that.

I can see what you mean Altinkum, but it seems clear from a few posts on here, particularly the one from quietlysuggests that it is pushed by the state in certain circumstances. Eugenics refers to improving the gene pool as a whole, so that can include removing those who have "undesirable" genetic compositions, regardless of whether they will pass that on or not.

Also, many people with autism, particularly people with Asperger's syndrome do go on to have children, so if a test for autism becomes available then it could in the long term have a significant eugenic effect.

But doesn't that rule exist for babies who have conditions that are incompatable with life? I doubt that there are loads of feckless parents out there terminating babies at 39 weeks because of every possible disability, no matter how minor/treatable. I doubt it's done on a whim.

Writerofdreams, unfortunatly they do. :( .

There is an American woman who survived being aborted, she would have been strangled if the doctor had not been called away. A nurse took her away and he survived, not saying this is the norm, but makes you think. He mum was depressed so was granted an abortion at 7 1/2 months.

I would not have wanted a disabled child and would have terminated if tests had shown problems - there, I've said it.
I know you can end up with a disabled child at any age but that is something unforseen.
I respect those with the opposite viewpoint but bandying around words like murder is crazy.
I am "Auntie" to my niece's DS son, he is now 10 and has serious heart problems / epilepsy etc. Downs can be very mild or very severe, you don't know just how severe until they are born - my niece was 22 when she was pregnant and found out her first child had DS. She was pregnant again within 3 months to prove to herself that she could have a "normal" child, which her daughter was.

Neither option is wrong, it's down to the individual family to decide what is best for that whole family.

"in Ireland if you go through the public health service the nuchal fold test is never offered as standard, you have to pay for it privately"

this is true in Wales too though not for moral reasons.

I see what you're saying Altinkum, but I think you're only really differentiating between efficient and inefficient eugenics. The OP's argument that it is hidden (and implictly, subtle) eugenics.

Just to let you know valium I won't be responding to your posts. I don't want this thread to descend into personal attacks.

WOD: if a position cannot be passed on, then the process cannot be eugenic as that condition has no effect on the collective gene pool. The process can only truly be eugenic if it is in some way mandated, not left up to individual women (and their partners) to choose. You can't 'remove something from the gene pool of a condition if some people will still have that condition and could pass it on.

crap English... should have said: you can't remove something from the gene pool if some people will still be able to pass it on.

Agree its not really eugenics if its not a condition that can be passed on, However i don't think women are supported efficiently regardless of their decision.

well I didn't "want" a disabled child, it isn't always about a choice, however much people pretend it is.
no one chooses to have a disabled baby , but for some it just happens.
sorry but I hate it hen people make it sound like it is always a choice.

92% of babies identified as having Down Syndrome are aborted. The 1% referred to late abortions.

Maybe I should have said Britain promotes eugenic ideas - ie the idea that someone can legitimately be killed due to genetic defects.

as a tax payer from a purely selfish POV the medical care , education,benefits and eventually residential care of severely disabled people make me think parents should have the right (and possibly be encouraged ) to abort a severely disabled foetus

See now WriterofDreams you are using words like 'Kill' and other people have used 'murder'

that's a whole other part of the argument as for many people, however hard the decision may be to abort, their Foetus is not a person just the potential to become a person.

you're right, that is purely selfish

and abhorrent

I can't believe you have posted it tbh

The right? Of course. Encouragement? Eek.

altinkum, absolutely!

2 shoe, agreed too. But me personally after ds1 died, i couldn't have cared less.

Writer, That 1% also includes women who are mentally unstable, with non disabled babies.

People say it about people on benefits having kids, and they cost a fraction of the price
Whats the difference??

wotnochocs

{biscuit]

Some with old people too then, just costing money! off them too should we?!