Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be shocked 90% of Down's babies are aborted?

575 replies

Strictly · 14/01/2011 09:20

I was jut reading this sorry, yes it's from the DM!

and then did a little Googling and it turns out 91% of people told their baby has DS will have an abortion... Shock

I'm just astounded it's so high. I'm not making a judgment on the idea people might abort, but am very shocked that it seems almost universal to abort if told the baby has Down's.

I wonder what it is about that particular condition that 91% of people feel they could not live with? The rates for abortions of Cerebral Palsy babies for example is nowhere near as high. Is it just that Down's is easy to detect so the majority of people actually get the chance to decide?

OP posts:
Misfitless · 14/01/2011 22:42

We had the test when pregnant with my DC3 and results indicated there was a very high risk of Downs. My own mother implied that we should opt for an abortion!

We had already agreed before the results that we wanted our baby no matter what. When we went to have the next test which would have been definitive, I asked if they could give me some reading material/information about Down's and they didn't have anythng available at all.

I thought at the time that this was dreadful. If there had been some representation of families with children/adults with Downs shown in a positive light it maight have made some people think twice about abortion.

To have no information about living with a child with Downs to give somebody who is facing having a baby with Downs at that crucial point in the pregnancy is baffling.

InPraiseOfBacchus · 14/01/2011 23:37

I think anyone who declines a test (not for religious reasons) is BU. We live in the 21st century. We have the technology. What good reason is there for not, at the very least, checking so that you can be prepared for what lies ahead?

PaisleyLeaf · 14/01/2011 23:48

Some people simply think the risk to the foetus doesn't warrant it Bacchus.

eidsvold · 15/01/2011 00:31

actually littlebeads in my experience we are becoming less inclusive as a society

Misfitless · 15/01/2011 05:40

midoori - all the positives that you have mentioned about children and adults with Downs being happy and successful - that sort of information should be available from midwives in the same way that information about tests and terminations is. It's so unfair and biased. Even before birth potential disabled babies are being discriminated against - no positive role models, not equally represented...even if it doesn't alter the number of terminations of babies with Downs, it would be invaluable for parents who have decieded to have their baby regardless at what is a very desperate time.
Does anybody agree? Maybe things are different at different hospitals. Hope so.

mathanxiety · 15/01/2011 06:21

You see many more people with DS in Ireland (restrictive abortion laws) than in the UK. An old neighbour from my childhood and her family moved back to Ireland from the UK when they had a DS child as they could have access to far better facilities and care for him and support networks for them there than in the UK, simply because there were more children and families affected.

nooka · 15/01/2011 06:35

I think that there should be better support and advice given prior to screening and more information and counseling available after testing. I suspect that one of the reasons that doctors paint negative pictures about disabilities is because they are likely to be much more aware of the significant health problems, and may well over emphasise them, because the children with health issues will be in the research they read, and the hospitals that they work in (and their training too) whereas those that thrive will in effect disappear.

Having said that I have a close relative with downs syndrome and if I ever got pregnant again I wouldn't tell anyone except dh that I was pregnant, would have the tests and I would abort (although this is theoretical because I would not get pregnant and if I did I would abort in any case).

InterestedinMoving · 15/01/2011 07:30

I am shocked the number is that high.

When I was pregnant I didn't have any tests, I would have been happy with what ever baby I got and I have been.

I often wonder if everyone who has an abortion for that reason admits they did and wonder how they explain it to people if teh pregnancy is obvious or people have been told.

CoteDAzur · 15/01/2011 08:29

At 18 weeks or so, it is not a "baby" who is killed. It is a fetus that is a aborted, a work-in-progress that would become a baby with DS if let to develop for another twenty weeks or so.

If given the choice, would you rather your baby did not have DS? "Yes" is not a controversial answer to this question.

Controversy stems from the view (mistaken, imho) that a fetus in early second trimester of pregnancy is already a baby with a unique personality and right to life, whose "parents" shock us with this senseless, selfish infanticide.

Rannaldini · 15/01/2011 08:33

I'm not shocked by 91%. That means 9 in every hundred d/s babies are born
I am almost more surprised by this as I don't know anyone with a d/s child
We know a number of families with d/s adults but not children

goingroundthebend4 · 15/01/2011 08:38

for me i did not have the triple tests as i would not had any further invasive tests as would not altered my mind .Mw agree no point to

Ds has sn and its something no tests could have found .

But then im very much of a womans right to choose though I do think that people should be given balanced information if their told their baby has high risk of having down syndrome .SO they have all the options before deciding

sarah293 · 15/01/2011 08:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

onmyfeet · 15/01/2011 08:45

I haven't read all of the thread yet (I will after I post), but it reminds me of a conversation from 25 years ago. A couple we knew were expecting, she was having an amnio as she was 37 or so years old. I asked her why she was having it, and she said they didn't want a handicapped child. I was totally shocked. But if people are having tests, then they must be planning on aborting, otherwise wouldn't they simply have the baby and find out when it arrived how it was health wise? If it didn't matter to them, they probably would have the amnio.
(although maybe they can do things to help a sick baby in the womb and that could be their reason?)

sarah293 · 15/01/2011 08:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

JakeBrake · 15/01/2011 08:48

I remember thinking I'd abort. Didn't have to make decision. Don't think I'd think the same now

sarah293 · 15/01/2011 08:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Rannaldini · 15/01/2011 09:00

when in hospital for d3 a baby was born to a young couple and the baby had d/s

they were devastated and really confused as they'd had all the run of the mill testing which they tought guaranteed a dd/s free baby

i think people should also be made more aware that much of the testing cannot entirely rule the possibility of a child born with a disability

CoteDAzur · 15/01/2011 09:05

Riven - It is not hard to understand at all that we would love our babies however great their disabilities and shortcomings.

It is also not hard to understand the the vast majority would prefer to have children without disabilities and genetic incurable defects.

Xenia · 15/01/2011 09:27

The statistics do not include those who are not tested. I didn't choose to have tests when I was pregnant with the twins (although I did have a scan) and there are particular issues with twins anyway because of two not one being in there. Despite not having the tests etc I would prefer not to have a child with a disability as most people would agree. Obviously we love our individual children for all their differences of all kinds but we might prefer to have had a child with legs or who didn't have xYZ or a nicer personality or whatever.

MainlyMaynie · 15/01/2011 09:38

InterestedinMoving people who make that decision don't have to explain to anyone. But I would imagine that they would explain to people close to them in the expectation of those people showing empathy and compassion. They don't have to explain to a bunch of people who've never been in that position judging them over the internet.

I suspect you were able to be happy with the babies you were given because you were lucky enough to not have a baby with serious chromosomal abnormalities who lived for a very short time in pain. Amnios don't just test for downs. I had the nuchal fold test and if I had come back high risk, I would have had an amnio with an experienced Dr to ensure very low risk of miscarriage. I don't know what I would have done if the test was positive for Down's, but I couldn't have carried a baby with one of the other chromosomal abnormalities to term, knowing I was essentially waiting for it to die either in the womb or shortly after birth. Just be thanking your luck that unlike some of the people posting on here you haven't been put in that position.

StealthPolarStuckSpaceBar · 15/01/2011 09:47

"InPraiseOfBacchus Fri 14-Jan-11 23:37:02
I think anyone who declines a test (not for religious reasons) is BU. We live in the 21st century. We have the technology. What good reason is there for not, at the very least, checking so that you can be prepared for what lies ahead?"

I declined the tests because my risks based on age were (IMO) at an acceptably low level and both DH and I decided that given those odds we'd rather not go through tests which would more than likely have no impact on our eventual decision anyway.
If your baby had a one in a billion chance of having a particular illness, would you have a test while pg to find out for definite?

TheSecondComing · 15/01/2011 09:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HumphreyCobbler · 15/01/2011 09:55

MainlyMaynie, thank you for your comments which say exactly what I also think.

Being happy with the baby you were given is easy if they have the possibility of LIVING InterestedinMoving.

You make my decision to end my pregnancy (of a child with Patau's syndrome who had not a chance of even breathing outside my body) sound like a convenient and selfish life choice.

I did not have invasive testing with any of my pregnancies, just nuchal scanning with subsequent babies. If nuchal scanning had been something I knew about in my first pregnancy. I would have found out about my baby much earlier and frankly that would have been better for all of us.

It is so easy to judge when you have not been put in this position.

2shoes · 15/01/2011 09:57

Rannaldini good point, very good one.
sadly I think people have tests and think yay I am ok(I know I did when I had the triple test and it came back ok) imagine my shock when dd was dxed with CP.....

2shoes · 15/01/2011 09:59

TheSecondComing Sat 15-Jan-11 09:55:22
i think some of the views on here are abhorrent

why???