To think MN is taking a strange stance on the NIPT test?

[eeyoresgrumpierfriend]

Is it just me or is MN giving a lot of coverage to those opposing the new non invasive prenatal screening tests the NHS wants to introduce. Today's blog of the day, Sally Phillips at Blogfest and there was a guest post against screening a while ago too.

Full respect to these women and the choices they've made but isn't the crux of the argument about women's choice?

The NHS already screens for Down's, Edwards and Pateau's but the new test will be safer and can be done earlier. It's only going to be offered to women who would otherwise be advised to have amnios/CVS.

So it's a less invasive, faster, less scary, safer way of women getting the information they want to make an informed decision right for them.

Odd that MN's seem to be giving a platform to the anti-argument with no counter-balance?

bad

You don't get to choose who posts.

We are talking about terminating pregnancies on the basis of the child having DS. Those unborn children may be one day away from birth and many mothers of children with DS have commented that they were offered unsolicited abortions all the way through their pregnancy. That's valid to the conversation about how we approach DS antenatally, as is the point that when we talk about termination for this condition we may indeed be talking about infants.

Just because you don't like this does not mean that your opinion should stand unchallenged. Some of the comments made about people with Ds on this thread have been truly disgusting.

I get to choose who to report for completely taking what I say and spinning it to fit their agenda.
Actually.

Did I say I wanted to kill infants?
Take me to the part of my post which said that.
Please.
Enlighten us poor idiots who didn't understand!

No, badders I think you're assuming I posted on direct response to you the first time. I didn't.

And you can of course report who you like.

...and I'm not the only one to find that comment offensive.

Ah,I see. The whole of the post was not a response to you but rather the tone of the thread -hence the word mumsnet rather than your username.

Reporting for the abusive name calling.

Go for it.
No doubt that will get deleted but your pro life bollocks will stand...
Of course all of mumsnet want infants killed!
Isn't that what mumsnet was started for?
Ffs.

Look badders, I don't know why you hate those with a different viewpoint to your own but I'm not calling your viewpoint bollocks and don't appreciate you calling mine that either. In fact I haven't commented directly on your viewpoint except to say that labelling people with DS sweet and cute is very patronising - and there is a real need for our society to become inclusive so that there isn't such a gap between 'their' world and ours. I expect you would agree with that on some level.

every child I have met with Ds has been sweet and cute.
Just my experience I realise and anecdote does not = data but I'm sure all parents think their kids are cute?
I have major issues with anyone who opposes women having more reproductive choice.
Anyone.
You, religious leaders, men, politicians....anyone. I find Sally Phillips and her proto Christian bleating highly offensive.
There IS a wider debate that is needed. No argument there. But to use her!?
Bad choice.
I found the programme quite disturbing in a way I can't quite verbalise...it seems to me that the way the country is going - Moving ever closer to the far right and very little England attitudes - that in time it could lead to changes in the law affecting access to terminations and women's reproductive rights. There have already been at least 2 highly publicised bills before parliament in the last 20 years to lower the termination cut off.
I haven't explained that very well - I can really express how uncomfortable I found the programme tbh...
Why was a born again Christian allowed to present this programme on such a divisive and emotional topic?
How in earth did the programme makers thing she would be able to be fair?

I think the born again christian Sally Phillips is more part of the liberal left elite that the bias BBC champion, rather than being representative of the actual public mood or direction. There has been attempts to lower the abortion timescale but there wasn't main stream voter support. There was also a campaign to end criminalisation of abortion which didn't get anywhere.

It was very disturbing that her view was so unbalanced and unchallenged. I dread to think how it could affect some young girl facing that decision by giving such a skewed perspective.

Saying kids with ds are sweet and cute implies something different to saying children in general are sweet and cute bad...I could do with finding my my kids sweeter today.

I think SP has as much a right to present from the perspective of a child with Ds as any other parent. It's not trying to be panorama.

Parent of a child

Maybe it should have been?

Agreed.

I think it's only right to provide as much choice as we are able.

It is the parents that take on the challenge so they should choose.

Personally as the mother of a baby that was born with significant needs, I felt the medical profession, and society in general gloss over how hard it can be, and how at times, quite unrewarding.

I've been in the bad news room. I was with DH and 2 members of the hospital team and yet i might as well have been totally alone.

Did i feel swayed to abort? No.
Did i actually register the HCPs attitudes at all? No.
Did they try to give me leaflets? No idea.
Did i feel as if this was my opportunity to contemplate the nuances of a world with or without disability? No.
Did i want to throw myself under the next large vehicle going past the hospital when i got out there? Yes.Yes.Yes.
(But i didn't because i had older children to think of).

I've read the thread and i just needed to share that.

I think that you can't be fully pro-choice if you add if's or but's.

Laiste.exactly that. My experience and my views exactly 💐

Totally agree with the op

they were offered unsolicited abortions all the way through their pregnancy.

What's an unsolicited abortion? If you mean they were informed of their right to have an abortion surely that's a good thing?

I do hate the idea that by having the option of terminating a pregnancy you're suggesting certain groups of people should never be born.

If we attempt to reduce teen pregnancy by increasing contraception availability are we suggesting that the children already born of teen mothers should never have existed? By reducing teen pregnancy we're probably preventing the birth of some wonderful people who might never exist but we're OK with this because we believe that people should have as much control as possible of their own reproduction.

I'm pregnant and paid for this test earlier this year. Whether DD had downs or not, I'd have kept her as my circumstances would make it possible. But I wanted to know so that I would be prepared. But it also tests for other issues that I probably would have had to consider termination for. I struggle to believe that there are people who would rather Mothers went through a riskier test than something so much safer. The test allows informed choices and I can see it resulting in safer pregnancies

I have worked with teenagers and adults with DS. DS is in reality a wide spectrum. I know DS adults who live independently with support. I know adults with DS who will never be independent, have lots of medical problems, and will always need looking after.

I would always choose not to give birth to a child that will never be independent. I know others will make a different choice.

I don't see this as about someones right to exist or quality of life. I have worked with very very severely disabled adults who had a great quality of life. Their parents did not though.