Transcripts of pre-birth testing on-line deliberation groups

Transcript for Deliberation Group 3 - closed 13 February, 2008

RE:Perhaps we're not as smart as we think
replyJane:01/27/2008 11:18 AM NZST
I think Dave_Kent raises another interesting point here and that is that despite us knowing in our heads that PBT is about 'diagnosing abnormalities' with the subtle (or not so subtle) expectation that they will be got rid of, the reality is that most people go along for the test to get confirmation that everything is 'fine'. I think the old deep down "it'll never happen to me' thing is really strong, and maybe thats a good self-preservation thing. I find it interesting that you are all in favour of testing to find out what a new child will be like and then you go on to blow that 'myth' out of the water haha, we're a complicated bunch, us humans. My personal feeling is that it is like opening your presents before Christmas!!!! My daughter has had 2 babies in the last 3 years with no scans and she and her partner have received so many negative comments form so many peopel about how irrsponsible they are. How will society react to parents that choose to have chilren knowing they have conditions that could be avoided. Already parents who continue to have children knowing they carry the CF genes (I know a few families who, having 1 child with CF have had more children without testing and now have 2 or 3 kids with CF) get heaps of negative/ judgmental comments from all over the place

RE:Perhaps we're not as smart as we think
replyJane:01/27/2008 11:20 AM NZST
Sorry about the typos; I didn't proof the last post before I submitted it haha :(

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyJane:01/27/2008 11:25 AM NZST
Does the fact that it is decentralised to tens of thousands of 'individual choices' mean that we are better than they were? EXACTLY. The only way the whole Nazi thing happened is because each individual (lets assume most of these people were just soldiers doing their jobs rather than inherently bad/mad people) manged to convince himself that it was just one/ a few people at a time. There is a fantastic saying that I can't remember who said it about how it doesn't affect me because I'm not Jewish/ gay/ disabled etc etc and by the time it does affect me its too late. Gosh that is a gabbled post sorry

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyJane:01/27/2008 11:34 AM NZST
Not sure whether this will work but here is a link to a blog with the poem and a whole lot of variations. I think they arer great
http://webweaversworld.blogspot.com/2006/10/first-they-came-for-jews-variations-on.html

Suggested Link:http://webweaversworld.blogspot.com/2006/10/first-they-came-for-jews-variations-on.html

janes link
commentsue:01/27/2008 11:52 AM NZST
thanks jane - i visited the link and it was very thought provoking

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyDave_Kent:01/27/2008 01:33 PM NZST
Angela - re. your point about testing for deafness, blindness etc. Actually with PGD you can. There have been cases where two deaf parents use it to select for a deaf child, because they consider deafness to be what a hearing person would think of as a 'culture', rather than a disability.

RE:Perhaps we're not as smart as we think
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 01:51 PM NZST
Hi Jane, I'm not sure I understand your statement "you are all in favour of testing to find out what a new child will be like and then you go on to blow that 'myth' out of the water."

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyAngela:01/27/2008 01:55 PM NZST
Hi Dave_Kent - now you mention it, I do reacall hearing about the deaf parents selecting a deaf embryo, but I can't agree with their choice and I'm really surprised a doctor went along with it. Why would you CHOOSE a disability for your child if it could be avoided? If they had three viable embryos and implanted them all knowing one/some were deaf, fine; but to choose one FOR it's deafness strikes me as irresponsible. I didn't realise we could test with surety for those things. If test were being done for a range of things and those happened to be screened at the same time, fine, but I think they warrent seperate testing. I keep thinking of two situations - testing embryos prior to implantation, and testing embryos in the womb, and I'm more comfortable with 'prior' test & not using them, than I am with testing what's already in place & growing. I'd still be ok with parents testing for whatever they want to they can know what's coming and prepare for it. My concerns are over where the line is drawn for aborting.

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replySam:01/27/2008 01:58 PM NZST
It would only be possible to test for such things if they were caused by a known genetic condition. That would only be a small proportion of cases of deafness or blindness. In NZ it is a breach of the HART Act to select an embryo with a genetic condition- such as deaf parents selecting a particular embryo to have a deaf child. I think we need to recap a bit here because we are conflating two different things:
* Screening during pregnancy- the use of scans, blood tests and so on is usually to check that all is well. Most parents would be reassured to find that out. However it may be that some people see a scan as a social event (first picture of the baby) rather than understanding the diagnostic purpose.
*On the other hand PGD is different. It involves genetic tests on embryos while still at the "test tube" stage and selecting embryos that do not have the condition tested for. It requires that there is a potential for a particular known condition and that the genetic cause is known. It is not a "warrant of fitness" of the embryos. Some PGD is government funded- see the choice book.
What happens to embryos that are not selected? say in the saviour sibling example- those that do not match the sick sibling- the parents could choose to preserve them to use for themselves to achieve a subsequent pregnancy or donate them to another infertile couple, or donate them for research or allow them to perish.

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyAngela:01/27/2008 02:00 PM NZST
And I don't to be mercenary, but unless the parents are planning to totally fund their child's disability themselves, how dare they choose it for the rest of us to fund? I'm thinking a deaf child (since this is the case example we have) will likely need special learning aids, maybe living aids and hearing aids. I'm perfectly accepting that we as taxpayers through the health system provide these things for people who need them because they end up with a condition, but to select it by choice and expect others to share the burden of cost is selfish in my opinion.

PRESSURE FROM SOCIETY
questionSam:01/27/2008 02:04 PM NZST
I think several of you have suggested this issue.
DO YOU THINK IT IS LIKELY THAT IF PARENTS CHOOSE NOT TO HAVE TESTING OR CHOOSE TO CONTINUE A PREGNANCY KNOWING THE CHILD WILL HAVE A CONDITION SUCH AS CYSTIC FIBROSIS THEY WILL BE SUBJECT TO CRITICISM?
Perhaps to go a little further.... is it possible that in time the view will be "you choose to have this child so you can't expect the taxpayer to find the extra costs of the child's care and education over and above the costs of a "normal" child"?

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyAngela:01/27/2008 02:07 PM NZST
Ooops, thanks for clearing that up Sam, about selecting embryos with conditions... I should have read your post before posting a ranting reply to Dave_Kent' post!
If embryos aren't selected, I think we have sufficient laws in place now to deal with them - they're kept for a set time unless the parents request their disposal earlier, then they're disposed of or donated for research. I don't think they should go to research without the parents approval and I'd rather they were incinerated quickly than left to 'perish' of their own accord.

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyDave_Kent:01/27/2008 02:11 PM NZST
Anglea - it's interesting that you say it's irresponsible to select a deaf embryo. Why is that? There are plenty of deaf people that live all around us, and they seem OK.

Some deaf people hate the condition, and would do anything to be able to hear, others enjoy the peace and quiet. How do you know which one the child will be?

Out of curiosity, would you think it was irresponsible for a homosexual couple to have a child by IVF or adoption, then try to encourage the child to be homosexual as well?

RE:PRESSURE FROM SOCIETY
replyAngela:01/27/2008 02:15 PM NZST
I hope parents won't be criticised for choosing to continue a pregnancy. Most of us have accepted that defects happen and as a civilised society, we care for members who need it. I feel the testing is for the parents to know what they're in for, and to make a personal call on whether they are prepared or able to handle it, and to come to terms with their situation and make preparations before the birth.
There's a whole lot of areas of funding I'm not happy about. I'm thinking of a woman who had no limbs and required 24/7 caring herself, who had a child knowing that she and the child would need extra assistance, and it was going to be government funded. I thought she was highly irresponsible and bloody cheeky, that her 'right' to be a mother was of more importance than our 'right' to not fund her choices? But it was legally allowed to happen, so it did. How is a parent choosing to continue to pregnancy with issues, any worse than what this woman did?
Bottom line for me: you can't choose defective embryos, but if problems show up after implantation, it's the parents call on whether to continue or not, taking into account rules around what conditions are severe enough to warrent termination.

RE:TRICKY ISSUES
replySam:01/27/2008 02:15 PM NZST
I think the main reason the number is low is because using the cord blood for treatment is really only relevant to some very rare blood conditions such as Diamond Black fan anaemia. For other blood conditions such as leukaemia the time involved in having the parents go through IVF and PGD and the pregnancy and delivery in most cases would mean it would be too late for the sick child so donation by living relatives or via the international donor registry would be the more practical approach. Remember the cord blood is only enough to treat small children (up to 5 or 6 years old).
"Letting go gracefully" may be a concept that some would adopt and of course those people would choose not to go down this track but many parents will do anything possible to save their child and argue that they would love all their children and use of the cord blood does no harm but much good- in other words two healthy children is much better than one dead child.

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyDave_Kent:01/27/2008 02:16 PM NZST
And on the taxpayer thing... I have done a lot of mountain biking, alpine climbing, fishing, boating and the odd bit of sky diving, not to mention DIY with power tools and riding a motor cycle. All of these activities incur higher than average payouts from ACC, do you mind having to pay for us to have fun while you're being safe?

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyAngela:01/27/2008 02:31 PM NZST
The analogy to homsexuality doesn't hold water for me as I believe homosexuality/lesbianism isn't a lifestyle choice, it's inherently part of who you are. You can choose not to act on it but not whether you are/feel it. Encouraging homosexuality in a hetrosexual child is only as irresponsible as encouraging hetrosexuality in a homosexual child... people will always get pressure from others. Sam has already said it's illegal to choose embryos with disabilities and I would assume that if a homosexual/hetrosexual gene was ever pinpointed, it would likely be illegal to screen on those grounds too... or it should be, given that homosexuality is no longer illegal.
I don't know what the child would prefer, and nor do the parents. There's also plenty of hearing children of deaf parents who are perfectly happy NOT sharing their parents' condition. I meant the irresponsibility was more about the financial cost the parents were willing to pass on to society, but I do feel it's irresponsible to choose a disability when you can avoid it. If I chose to do things that would definitley harm my born child, CYFS would whip them away from me promptly, even if I argued they were things I did myself and was happy with the harm it caused me.
Religeous parents that shun blood products for medical reasons can be overruled by Courts if they deny those life-saving products to their children, because it's about what is generally accepted by the majority of the society as best for the child. And I'm thinking it's generally accepted by the majority of society that being fully abled is best.

RE:PRESSURE FROM SOCIETY
replyMegelli:01/27/2008 02:33 PM NZST
Yes, Sam, I do think that they would be subject to criticism from a certain segment of society. However, my reply would be "the taxpayer chooses to fund thousands and thousands of abortions too, many for no other reason than the parent chose not to use contraception and got pregnant". We as taxpayers fund MANY things we disagree with!

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyAngela:01/27/2008 02:36 PM NZST
Yes, Dave_Kent, actually I DO mind paying to cover high-risk activities others choose to undertake when I don't, and I'd be happier if people took out private health/medical insurance for such things. I was really pissed off when my husband (who was an innocent victim in a car crash) was refused ACC funding for a further operation a specialist deemed necessary, but a friend with a rubgy-related injury got all he needed. However, I understand the reason we have ACC instead of solely private insurance is to cover those who can't or won't take it out and to avoid the lawsuits countries like America suffer that chew up more resources than just paying out ACC claims.

RE:PRESSURE FROM SOCIETY
replyAngela:01/27/2008 02:40 PM NZST
I'm thinking those who criticise parents who continue with a pregnancy are only as bad and as many as those who used to criticise the same parents in times past for raising the child themselves, instead of locking them away in an institution out of public sight & mind.

RE:PRESSURE FROM SOCIETY
replyAngela:01/27/2008 02:42 PM NZST
And I totally agree with Megan that we DO fund lots of stuff we disagree with. But since I'd choose to fund stuff others disagree with and may need one day to take advantage of said funding, I'll pay what the majority rules because there has to be give-&-take and compromises for us to co-exist happily. The tricky part is balancing individual with collective rights.

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyAngela:01/27/2008 02:46 PM NZST
As I've already said, I'm not a supporter of IVF and wouldn't use it or pay for it personally, but I do understand why others want/need it so I will pay my taxes and let the government fund IVF for those who want it under their current stance where treatment is not unlimited.

RE:Perhaps we're not as smart as we think
replyJane:01/27/2008 03:00 PM NZST
Just that Dave_Kent pointed out that we don't ever get a guarantee that ANY child will be/do what we might have had planned for it eg the parents want the child to be a doctor and the child wants to be an artist. Not critiscising Dave_Kent at all for his views- I agree with him, but just reinforcing that people think tests will equal some sort of guarantee. I have often heard people say "I've had a scan so I know that everything is fine"!!!

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyJane:01/27/2008 03:20 PM NZST
Deaf (with a capital 'D') is considered a culture and NZ Sign, the language of Deaf, is one of the 3 official languages of Aotearoa/NZ. Deaf people only require additional resourcing because the have to live in a society which doesn't take their language and cultural needs into consideration. They aren't wanting hearing aids or cochlea implants. While, as Sam says, Deaf parents cannot currently select embryos to have a Deaf child, surely that is part of this debate. I'm not sure how I feel about it in the context of this discussion.

RE:PRESSURE FROM SOCIETY
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 05:07 PM NZST
I believe there is already this type of criticism, and we cannot make decisions based on whether there will be more of it because it will always be there, just shift around from topic to topic according to societal fashion. A relative of mine had 8 children in all. One who has an ongoing (unique) condition and wasn't expected to live past the age of 13, and one who was born with anatomical difficulties which led to some lifesaving surgeries all at the tax payers expense. Now, although both these children are happy contributing members of society, and although the conditions couldn't be tested for, she was under incredible pressure from many other people including her own gp to cease reproduction not only from the people who think she was selfishly putting a drain on society due to the number of children she had(someone tell me please how this criticism is logical?) but also 'in case' there were more sick babies, even though the last two following were perfectly fine. Imagine how that is mutiplied for people who have children with conditions that COULD have been tested for.

RE:PRESSURE FROM SOCIETY
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 05:12 PM NZST
well said Megelli re: funding abortions, and it drives me mildly nuts that people go off and choose to enjoy high risk sports at my expense if they are injured, how about those people paying a 'school uniform' tax, so that when I can't afford my child's compulsory uniform, its paid for by tax. Would that ever get passed? I don't think so!

RE:TRICKY ISSUES
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 05:26 PM NZST
QUOTE: "Are you saying that it's OK to do this naturally (keep having babies until you have one who matches the sick child) but not to use IVF and PGD to achieve the same end?" No not at all. I think that you decide whether or not it is ok full stop, and the how becomes less relevant. For me, even to consider to do something quite so drastic as to have a child relative to being a saviour sibling would require serious prayer and discussion with God beforehand, as my religious convictions also remind me that I don't have to make decisions based on my own puny knowledge and opinion alone. Again, people have differing beliefs, which makes this all so ruddy complicated. The research outcome is interesting, thank you for that.

Silverskinks personal summary.
commentskinkcity:01/27/2008 06:44 PM NZST
Sorry everyone if this is like a hi-jack, but there are so many posts, I'm trying to consolidate my opinion. a) If tests are proven important (read essential) for someone's circumstances and the survival and best chance to avoid very serious conditions of the children then they should be available and funded, even if they involve IVF and PGD, and the research for improving and developing tests for extremely serious conditions should also be funded. a2) IVF should also only be available and funded for those for whom it has been proven important/essential, not those who could have children naturally without significant risk, but want a 'better' child b) tests should not be funded for those who want them simply because they are available, not because they are essential, and these should be user pays. I'm not sure on my stance re general IVF for those who do need it to conceive, I wish more of those parents would consider adoption, I wish more young single mothers would place their babies for adoption, but that's not relevant to these questions really. c) researching new tests for research's sake should also not be ethically allowed for public funding unless it can be proven that there would be significant benefit either by targetting very serious conditions or by providing solutions to conditions that are very widespread. I would personally as an individual be unhappy if even privately funded research involved embryos for less than extremely serious conditions. d) I HAVEN'T got a CLUE how to quantify very serious condition!. e) I disagree completely with abortion, so could not recommend allowing testing that leads to terminations, and therefore lean more towards PGD, however I also have questions re the long term implications of testing through cell removal. Common sense based on current biological knowledge says there's no long term effect but as has already been mentioned by someone else, current biological knowledge didn't believe a change of blood type was possible from cellular implantation either.

RE:Silverskinks personal summary.
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 06:45 PM NZST
f) My thoughts on the approach 1 (uncensored version of approach 1) is that supporters would want their rights as paramount regardless of what was best for society as a whole and I feel this is unacceptable, but that a more moderated approach 1 has many sensible ideas including parents ultimately bear the responsibility for raising their child, so therefore should ultimately make the decisions. This is qualified by my feeling that in order to do so, they need the best and most correct information, presented in a non-biased environment, which includes laws or at the very least strong recommendations of what society as a whole has deemed the limits of acceptability. Then if they wish to make a decision outside those limits they are free to find a different society where the decision is an acceptable one, or to pay for 'more'. g) parents should never have the right to purposely choose embryos with defects. Take the deaf culture example as already used. If a child wishes to be deaf like their parents, then they could choose to listen to very loud music as a teenager. To give a child a defect on purpose before knowing whether that's what they would choose for themselves when they are at an age capable of making that kind of call is totally unethical. I somehow feel like I should justify the word 'defect' too, as I know there are many deaf people who would disagree that deafness is a defect, but in the technical sense it is. h) Any possible scenario for saviour siblings should be allowed only under the following conditions. 1-last resort. 2-the parents would choose to have the child even if it was not a match 3-extensive prior counselling and ongoing care and counselling as necessary for all involved (including the siblings) to have a healthy mental and emotional picture of things. 4-continued research into the implications and consequences further down the track. i) using PGD to select for sex is going too far down the 'cosmetic baby' track for me, too much like the many chinese who abandon their female children. j) actually there's a case against letting the state have too much control over reproductive decisions! k) the criteria for in utero testing should be far stricter than in vitro testing. Not able to completely express why, that one's coming from the 'gut' although it's possibly along the lines of 'its too late by then to do many things without significant risks to the child, and my abhorrence of abortion'.

RE:Silverskinks personal summary.
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 06:46 PM NZST
j) tests that only show %ge chances are too inaccurate, my recommendation regarding those would be 'get better tests'. I think its too unfair to expect people to make decisions based on those, but understand that many people would be willing to take that burden on themselves and make those calls even if I wouldn't. k) I agree with the concerns about societal norms changing over time, and that as less people with severe disabilities exist, milder conditions will become the new severe, and those who still exist with the more severe conditions will become freaks in the sense of the elephant man. However, I cannot for the life of me find a successful way to logically disagree with the idea that striving for a society made up of healthy individuals is bad, either for the parents, or for the society in entirity. (Whew, space for 500 words isn't much!)

Summing up approach one
summarySam:01/27/2008 07:07 PM NZST
Gosh!! You are such a lively group! I think we have covered a lot of ground so far and I will attempt a summary-but tell me if I get it wrong!
*You mostly support pre-birth testing if it allows parents to prepare for a child with a condition out of the usual (loosely referred to here as a disability)
* Some people think preventing children being born with Down syndrome is concerning but might feel more supportive if the tests relate to conditions that might cause the child to suffer pain and/or early death
* You also support parents' right to choose not to have testing and those who decide to continue with a pregnancy even though they know the child will have a disorder. They should be supported both with resources and with community support
* Some of you support parents' right to decide whether or not to continue the pregnancy while others think that once a baby is on the way parents' should accept whatever child they get
* You felt concern about people thinking that they can ensure a "perfect child" and thought they should be aware of the uncertainties of the tests and the many other factors that influence a child's development
* Some people thought that PGD was OK if used to prevent a child being born with a serious genetic disorder but were concerned about the possibility of this being extended to designing children (while realising this is not yet possible).
* Most of you thought that there was a difference between medical actions and those that were more like enhancement (eg taller, smarter, more musical)
* You were concerned that inequities would result if people could access any tests etc if they could pay for it themselves and thought a range of tests should be state funded
*You were concerned about testing for late-onset and/or treatable conditions
* You had mixed feelings about "saviour siblings" with concern about how this might effect the donor child.

Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
questionSam:01/27/2008 07:16 PM NZST
Let's now turn our attention to approach 2: Life is a Gift. People who support this approach would not allow any decision to destry an embryo or terminate a pregnancy because they believe every embryo or foetus has a right to life. This approach suggest that when it comes to pregnancy and the foetus we should interfere as little as possible.
Just as when we considered approach 1 we're aiming to appreciate:
* What is is that those people who support this approach find valuable about it
* What might be the costs and consequences of this approach
* What the tensions and conflicts might be
So put yourself in the position of a supporter of this approach and consider:
WHAT IS IT THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THIS APPROACH FIND VALUABLE ABOUT IT?

RE:Summing up approach one
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 07:16 PM NZST
Sam you are very good at making concise summaries. (better than me for certain!)

RE:Silverskinks personal summary.
replymamaof4:01/27/2008 07:22 PM NZST
wow, well done skinkcity! i agree with a lot of what you have written too. one thing i want to ask you, in regards to PGD, and your complete disagreement with abortion (which i share), while PGD is ok what about the disposal of the embryos that arent chosen/used? i feel nearly as uncomfortable about these getting chucked out, as i do about abortion from the womb.

RE:Summing up approach one
replymamaof4:01/27/2008 07:36 PM NZST
good summary sam :)

RE:Silverskinks personal summary.
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 08:35 PM NZST
hih mamaof4. I am undecided about that aspect of things. My recognition of the uncertainty of when a new life counts as a new life means that although I'm not sure I can believe that an embryo of that size is any more than a bunch of cells that is a 'potential new person' rather than a new person per se, I could well be wrong. I guess we'll be discussing the action, 'no disposal of embryos' in this second approach.

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyJane:01/27/2008 09:17 PM NZST
I guess supporters of this approach believe that ALL human life is sacrosanct. I thought most people with this attitude/ belief thought that life begins at conception, so PGD/ termination/not implanting would be out as well. My personal stance is that I am pro-choice in respect of abortion as a woman's choice if it's not the right decision to have this baby now, but oppose the aborting of foetuses following diagnosis of so-called abnormality. ie if you want a baby, have a baby and if you don't, don't; but don't go choosing what kind of baby (Hope that makes sense) - About adoption; I don't believe this is a good thing either. Children shouldn't be commodities to be traded and the fiction of adoption ie suddenly by the stroke of a pen a child has a whole new history, appalls me. However shared/ joint guardianship or whangai where the biological links are valued and retained at the same time as new links are created is a different thing and something I think is wonderful

RE:Silverskinks personal summary.
replySam:01/27/2008 09:21 PM NZST
Two things you might like to think about:
* Although embryos cannot be selected because they have a genetic trait such as deafness the ones with the genetic defect could be donated for research (but that would also result in their destruction).
* The way IVF is practiced in most countries (except Italy I understand) means that often more embryos are created than are used. so if you are going to say embryos should not be discarded you would need to apply that to IVF as well so that each cycle all the embryos created would have to be transferred to a woman which might result in multiple births and many cycles of fertility drugs etc for women
* There is quite a large number of embryos lost through the natural conception process as well although that is not necessarily as intentional as discarding IVF embryos, except in cases such as some types of contraception.

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyAngela:01/27/2008 09:49 PM NZST
Re: Deaf as a culture... says who? The deaf? Because what's so stop any other subgroup claiming they're a culture? Maybe they already do within their own subgroup and these things take time to filter out into the wider community. Any subgroup can call themselves anything they like and it may or may not be picked up by the wider community. All subgroups could claim that they only require additional resources because their specific needs aren't taken into consideration by society.
And if Deaf can say they're an acceptable culture that doesn't require any moderation or correction or prevention against, couldn't others come to say the same? Then could we end up where those with a specific disability, who think that having more of their kind would mean greater acceptance and funding of their needs, could argue that no embryo with their disability should be allowed to be terminated, regardless of the parent's wishes?
I know, it's a long drawn bow, but extremes can be reached with tiny steps.

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replySam:01/27/2008 09:56 PM NZST
That's a very interesting point. It sort of fits within approach 1 which would allow each individual the freedom to decide for themselves- so people with genetic conditions could chose to use PGD to select embryos with that condition if they wished.
What are your thoughts about the question we are moving on to- WHAT DO PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT APPROACH TWO: LIFE IS A GIFT FIND VALUABLE ABOUT IT?

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyAngela:01/27/2008 09:58 PM NZST
I'm not intending to offend anyone with words I use, like 'defect' or 'disability'; I just use what I consider to be a dictionary definition to get a meaning across. I don't have much contact with special needs people so I don't know what terms are currently politically correct!

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyAngela:01/27/2008 10:11 PM NZST
I see two groups of supporters for this 'Life is a Gift':
1. The religeous who believe that only God may decide who lives and who dies. Testing is therefore unnecessary as any life conceived will continue as God intends.
2. Those who believe that Nature should take it's course and it's nature that some people will have defects/disabilities, some will survive and some won't.
I guess some of both groups may still like testing so they know what's coming for them to cope with and to prepare any assistance their child may need, but it won't affect the basic outcome - a child was conceived and it WILL be born.
In relation to IVF, each of these two groups will have members who believe people have no right to artificially create conception through IVF as you either are able to conceive naturally, or you're not, as God or nature intends.

RE:Why do we talk about Downs Syndrome so much?
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 10:17 PM NZST
people would support the life is a gift approach if they believe that there is inherently more to life than just existance, whether through religious belief or their concept that every life has a contribution to make to one another and the earth as a whole. This would mean that the thing they find most valuable IS life. This may be confined to human life, or encompass all life. But i think they would also highly value the contribution each person as an individual brings to one another, and the learning and growth each individual gains from being here. And I think having life as the highest value, they would also see the negative aspects of being alive, ie pain, suffering, work as being worth the struggle, and for the ones who hold to this approach due to religious reasons, even necessary in the broad and overall sense.

RE:Silverskinks personal summary.
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 10:23 PM NZST
I cannot conceive that it would be humanly possible to keep and intend to use all the embryos created for IVF and PGD. There would be far too many. As you say, there are also many lost through miscarriage as it is in the natural course, and a lot of these would be lost due to defect, therefore, would the destruction of IVF embryos that have serious genetic issues be any different to the natural loss expected by approach 2 adherents? and also, women are extremely overprovided with eggs in the first place. I know that this is not the same, as they are unfertilised, but it is similar.

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyDave_Kent:01/27/2008 10:34 PM NZST
(skinkcity: well done for the summary - you're working hard at this!)

I think my opinions are closest to being expressed by approach 2, so rather than putting myself in hypothetical shoes, I'll just say what I think.

The last 2 shops I have been to have had prominent displays at the checkout to promote the use of reusable bags, and I'm beginning to feel like an outcast buying the old style supermarket bags at Pak N Save (I use them for groceries, then for bin liners). A plastic supermarket bag weighs about 5g, and is made using the same amount of oil it takes to drive a mid-sized car 100m. So if you circle the carpark looking for a park, you've burned the equivalent of a couple of them. If you make an extra trip to the supermarket, you could burn several year's worth.

I think there is something wrong with our society when we are more concerned about throwing out 5g plastic bags than we are with throwing out fertilized embryos and foetuses.

A lot of people in my parent's generation have an aversion to throwing out food that I've never understood. I think it's because their parents grew up in the depression, when food _really was_ precious. To them food is something that must be preserved and accounted for. They have a deep sense that wasting food is somehow morally wrong.

I was crossing the border between Thailand and Malaysia once in a minibus with a bunch of strangers, and when we stopped on the Malaysian side I threw away my Thai money, because it was less than most money changers will accept, and I wasn't planning to return. One of my fellow travellers became quite upset and insisted that I pick it up again. For the next part of the journey he gave me a stern lecture on the 'value' of money, and how it is something that you must never throw away. Every time I roll a coin down College Hill road I think of him.

At university I had a flatmate who grew up in Malawi, and as a result she couldn't stand to see water being wasted. Another flatmate and I took great delight in blocking her from getting in to the kitchen, then turning the taps on as far as they would go until we were falling around laughing so much that she was able to overpower us and turn the taps off.

We've all got something we don't like seeing being wasted - for me it's human life.

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyskinkcity:01/27/2008 10:36 PM NZST
Fiction of adoption? Ouch. I do agree that open adoption is far preferable in most cases, where biological links are kept, valued and included, but not always. In many cases where the initial home environment was totally unsuitable a child would be far better off psychologically having no contact with those biological links until adulthood unless the birth parent etc was able to make some HUGE changes in their lifestyle. The idea that children are commodities to be traded is a whole different story from general and sensible adoption process, and is one of those black market style things that everyone should see as unethical anyway, I agree that that attitude is horrific. As far as adoption goes an approach 2 proponent would say that once the child is here, it has the right to a life that provides it with certain things, and if you cannot give it those things it should have, then it also has the right to be placed with someone who can and will.
a 'life is a gift' supporter would also say that aborting a child because 'its not the right decision to have a baby now' is the ultimate in selfishness, and that not having sex is a far better way of preventing a child coming along at the 'wrong time'.

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyJane:01/27/2008 11:00 PM NZST
By 'fiction of adoption' I mean the current and very old laws we have in NZ where the adopted child gets a new birth certificate with the adopting parents names on it as if the birth parents didn't exist. Also, legally in NZ there is still no such thing as open adoption; it is entirely up to adopting parents whether or not the birth parents get to stay in contact. I know that most adoptions nowadays are completely different in practice, but adoption will never be a perfect solution (not that anything else is either of course) I do know people who have become addiotinal guardians with the birth parents rather than perpetuate the 'fiction'. It isn't always easy but the children grow up knowing their biological history as well as their social history. And I agree that, again in our ideal world, there would be no unplanned pregancies, but I guess we are a while away from that!!!

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyAngela:01/27/2008 11:38 PM NZST
I thought our abortions laws stated that you couldn't have one just because 'now isn't the right time'... you're supposed to have to prove the pregnancy or birth (NOT the child as you don't have to keep it) will be harmful to your physical or mental health.
But in practice, abortions are given for the mother's convenience. And I worry that they'll be given because parents receive news they don't like about PDG results, because it's probably not convenient for most people to have a less than perfect child.

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyMegelli:01/28/2008 08:19 AM NZST
This is my intial reaction, I would value others ideas. Everything we do in life has consequences. We step out in front of a car, we get hit, and perhaps we die... there are hundreds of examples of this. These decisions can't be undone (we can't UNstep out from the car that hit us)! We can only make a better decision before we cross the street. The point is, that if we have sex there is a possibility we might get pregnant. If we don't want a child, then we need to make a better decision that will stop this happening. If we take the risk, shouldn't we live with the consequences? The only reason I believe we have a right to make the decision is if some one "pushes us in front of the car' - in other words rape.

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replySam:01/28/2008 08:27 AM NZST
I think it's possible you may become distracted by considering abortion in general- remember here we are looking at pre-birth testing and the decisions people might make either whether to have tests at all and then what to do if the results show a disorder. So it's not a question of abortion on demand.
So what might the results be if a person finds out the child will have some disorder but they are unable to terminate the pregnancy if that was their wish. You have already suggested that adoption is one possibility although in the past there was not enough people willing to adopt disabled childen and many ended up in institutions.
I agree- let's not worry about being PC correct here- refer to disability, disorder, defect if you wish and the rest of us will understand that is not meant unkindly- just as a shorthand to get the meanng across.

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replysue:01/28/2008 08:28 AM NZST
Hi Dave_Kent - i must be the same generation as your parents as i too hate to see food thrown away!
we are currently packing ready to shift from the bottom of the south island to the top
this time we have decided that what won't fit on our truck isn't going - the truck is not huge so
it has been a very stressful time for my husband who can't bear to part with his treasures - some of which have moved house 10 times and not been used . i know there are lots of people like him too
really vaule possessions
it is surprising that LIFE has become so valueless but there are so many abortions, children being killed (or "only" hurt) by their parents, and other attacks on people that is does seem to have a low value
I was struck by a recent article re the military medals which were stolen and the reward offered -
this was written by a family member of someone murdered - a reward was offered for info on their case too but it was about 5% of that offered for the medals and they objected to medals being worth more than a human life
those risking their lives to get the medals were usually trying to save someones life not get a medal so their attitude was life is precious
we admire those who have risked themselves to save others yet dispose of life so readily when it suits (doesn't suit)

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyskinkcity:01/28/2008 08:59 AM NZST
The thing about the life is a gift approach IS that it would consider abortion in general terms though. That a termination due to unfriendly test results is no different from an abortion due to convenience, either way it would be seen as murder / euthanasia. This is why I can't see the life is a gift approach ever being fully embraced either, because too many people would disagree. They will see the appeal of being able to terminate pregnancies that will likely result in severe disability. Also IVF will continue, and embryos will be created that cannot possibly all be implanted, so therefore society will 'speak' as it were.
A parent who could not terminate an unwanted pregnancy is definitely a cost of approach 2. There would be psychological, financial, and life altering consequences for the parents. Can I add, with my 'approach 2' hat on, that before scientific prebirth testing even in its most basic form came along, everyone struggled far less psychologically with the thought of a child with a disability because it was just the way things were, and the removal of the choice whether or not to have the pregnancy also removed the burden of that choice, so is it actually the advent of the tests and availability of abortion itself that has created this dissatisfaction? (although we could also argue that one the other way round, and point out the way children with disabilities were completely misunderstood, often treated like freaks and either 'displayed' or ostracised or left out to starve by many communities, and their mothers also as women cursed, or possessed)

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyskinkcity:01/28/2008 09:05 AM NZST
yes Sue, I agree the concept of life being precious in and of itself is being eroded rapidly, as everyone defines it nowadays in terms of 'rights' rather than 'thats the way it is'. I wonder if it is in some way a reaction to the 'we are killing our planet', or the evolutionist 'we are no better than animals' or the 'do what ever you want there are no consequences (ruddy gangsta thief dole collector mentality)' information we get bombarded with, so more people are starting to see humanity itself in less and less flattering terms.

pro life
commentsue:01/28/2008 09:08 AM NZST
i am pro life and think there is value in all levels of life
i have worked in special needs and also in caring for severe ms end stage patients who have in
other peoples eyes a low quality of life
i have seen the smile in the eyes of someone so severely affected they can no longer eat,speak or move except a few muscles in their face
when young and "in trouble" i had an abortion
i am missing a 25 year old son/daughter in the middle of my family
if abortion was not such an easy option or there had been any kind of support available to me to keep the child i would have but the advice was all - get rid of it and this from every helping agency i went to even the church
i wish abortion was illegal - then people like me who wouldn't deliberately break the law would not be given the choice (ie no choice)
more money would be available to help people decide to keep or adopt their baby and maybe if this legalised killing stopped then some of the murders assaults and other dreadful things happening here in nz would reduce too - it is all about the bottom line - life is precious is a mesage which would filter through eventually - life is expedient filters through too and has done

RE:pro life
replySam:01/28/2008 09:30 AM NZST
So would you say that you would support better options being offered to women when they are making choices to help them realise that termination is not the only possibility?
What would your view be if the prebirth tests show the child will have a condition that will cause it extreme suffering and/ or early death? Or that the continuation of the pregnancy might endanger the mother's life?

RE:pro life
replysue:01/28/2008 09:42 AM NZST
if you have this view then these things just have to be a part of it however hard or sad
death and suffering are part of all lives to differing degrees and however much we would like to alleviate them we usually can;t
the extra life choices that are available to people now do not necessarily improve their life and often make things worse - no one would argue that todays life is less stressful than the previous generations
no one has a crystal ball - if they did and parents could see everything ahead for their child - and could choose to abort - would any children be born?

RE:pro life
replyJane:01/28/2008 09:57 AM NZST
I remember a piece of research about women who had had terminations of babies that would not be able to live- anencephaly and suchlike. The research found that these women had much more significant grief/ loss/ emotional/ psychological issues than the women who had birthed these babies and then had them die naturally. Seems the women still felt like they had taken the life even though rationally it was never going to be a life, if you get my drift. I also know of dozens of people who doctors have predicted will have very poor quality of life (whatever that may mean) or only live a short time and the reality has been that they have grown up and done just fine, or during their shorter life, they have contributed so much, that everyone who knew them benefited from having done so. Not to hark back to Down synd but 30 years ago these people were considered 'unteachable' even to the point of not being able to do any selfcares/ toileting/ communicating etc. DS hasn't changed but the world and our expectations/ understnading of DS sure have!!! So who's to say what the 'extreme suffering and/ or early death' scenarios may look like in another few years?

RE:pro life
replyJane:01/28/2008 10:02 AM NZST
I totally agree Sue- Violence begats violence. And whilst I do think there is a place for legalised abortion generally, I think it shouldn't be so easy and I think we as a society need to look at the impact of increasing violence everywhere. We started watching the first Harry Potter movie on TV the other night and we were horrified at the level of violence in that. I think violence has become normalised in our society to the point where we are very desensitised to it. Part of the selfish 'all about me" culture?????

And another idea in your post that I like is the idea of who measures QUALITY OF LIFE. I sure wouldn't want to be a judge of that or have someone else judge mine LOL!!!

I think these are the arguments proponents of Choice 2 would use

RE:pro life
replySam:01/28/2008 10:49 AM NZST
Thanks for that Jane.I have been told that for some women to have a baby which dies shortly after birth may be less traumatic than a late termination. So... would you think that a mother with a child with a serious genetic condition who does not want another child with that condition should be able to use PGD (which would mean not using embryos with the condition) or if she became pregnant naturally terminating the pregnancy?

A newcomer
commentHelen:01/28/2008 11:09 AM NZST
I have been away & have just joined in today. There is obviously a lot of reading to do before I catch up but will try to get through it all. I have a different interest in this discussion now than from when I initially registered as have since been told I am to be a grandma in September! So exciting! My daughter is 36 & will be having pre-birth testing so I hope I can learn here so pass on to her. She lives in the UK & is not happy with the NHS so may go private but it is very expensive. Any thoughts from anyone here on maternity care in the UK?

RE:pro life
replyJane:01/28/2008 11:22 AM NZST
I'm not sure about the difference in 'invasiveness' for the woman, but assuming the PGD is less invasive, then I think that would be the better option. Again, I know people who live with a level of guilt around having testing subsequent to having a disabled child. i.e. does testing (with the plan to abort) somehow betray the child I already have. Also in our family we have relatives who do have a very rare chromosomal disorder which affects their eldest child, and have had testing of their 3 subsequent children, none of whom have the disorder. However, one of the other children has a different, but quite significant disability. So again none of this is a cast iron guarantee

RE:A newcomer
replySam:01/28/2008 12:06 PM NZST
Welcome Helen. If you use the pull down tab on the upper right of your screen you can select my moderator's posts only and see the questions considered which may help you get your head around where we are up to. At present we are looking at approach 2 : "Life is a Gift" and considering the things that a person would supported this approach might see as its benefits- the "best foot forward" arguments in favour of this approach. I can't comment about PBT in the UK although my son who lives in London at the moment is very scathing about the National Health Service!

Pro life
commentHannah:01/28/2008 01:03 PM NZST
Hi I too am a newcomer. I am a mother of three. The problem I have with prebirth testing is gives the parents an option to abort the baby if it is less than perfect. Its playing God and who has the right to determine who lives and dies? Yes its the parents choice to go on with the pregnancy or not but instead of supporting the parents with their baby, they're giving them an option to dispose of a less than perfect child.

RE:Pro life
replyHelen:01/28/2008 02:17 PM NZST
I find it hard not to see both sides in this debate. I agree that abortion of an imperfect baby is "playing God" but can quite understand the parents who see it as the only option as they feel unable to cope with a disabled child. My ex-husband told me when I was pregnant not to bring home the baby if it was not perfect! This may have been because he had 2 disabled aunts & had seen how much a strain this put on the family. ( It may also have been because he wasn't that keen on us having children anyway. hence the "ex" ) I imagine that if PBT had been an option then I would have considered it.

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyAngela:01/28/2008 02:23 PM NZST
History tells us EXACTLY what will happen if an authorised medical abortion is denied - some women will continue with the pregnancy and others will attempt to self-abort or find someone to do it for them (ie. backyard abortion). You'd have to be very naive to think that refusing an abortion to a woman who didn't want to continue a pregnancy (in this case, because it had a condition she wasn't prepared to deal with) would mean that the child would automatically still be born.

RE:Pro life
replySam:01/28/2008 02:23 PM NZST
It'sgreat that you can see both sides as we will be coming to the costs and consequences soon. Are you saying that one benefit of the "life is a gift" aopproach is that mother's would be protected from pressure to make certain decisions- whether from their partners or from wider society?

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replySam:01/28/2008 02:26 PM NZST
Angela you certainly are right that in the past when abortion was not available in NZ those who could do so went overseas and those who couldn't resorted to back yard means of termination. Even if they did not do this would you foresee problems if women were forced to conmtinue with pregnancies that they or their partners were opposed to?

RE:pro life
replyAngela:01/28/2008 02:28 PM NZST
Abortion was legalised partly because women were dying from backyard unsafe abortions, and abortions have been conducted for centuries. Making it illegal now will NOT save the embryo, it will merely kill or maim more women who will need more costly medical care to recover.

RE:pro life
replyAngela:01/28/2008 02:37 PM NZST
If I was a 'Life is a Gift' person (either strongly religeous or a nature-is-natural-&-best view), I suspect I would say: ALL conception must be allowed to run it's course, regardless of the danger to the mother. She took a calculated risk in becoming pregnant and must shoulder the consequences of her actions. She either believes that it's God's will that we procreate, and His Will will prevail as to if the baby survives and in what state of health. If she's a proponent of 'Nature', she will believe that nature will sort the strong from the weak, and those who are strong enough to survive carry the genes that humankind need to ensure their continuance. Those that don't survive, don't have what the gene pool needs and will not be a drain on everyone else's resources.
NOTE: please don't jump on me, I don't believe these things, I'm just trying to think about what a supporter of Sam's #2 might say!

RE:pro life
replyAngela:01/28/2008 02:42 PM NZST
Women currently HAVE all their options explained to them prior to a termination through compulsory counselling, and girls/women are given a ton of info on sex, contraception & fertility, so I don't see we can do much different to what we're doing. It's not like unwanted pregnancies are a new thing... ancient Egyptians were aborting, Romans were aborting!

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replysue:01/28/2008 02:49 PM NZST
there would be many women who would NOT resort to backyard abortions and for the ones who are stupid enough to do so they should take the consequences
if there was no choice they would find a way of coming to terms with whatever was predicted from their tests

RE:pro life
replyAngela:01/28/2008 02:51 PM NZST
Yes, I think a mother who has had a child with a serious genetic disorder would likely to want to avoid repeating the experience and I wouldn't be surprised if they were keen on PGD with a view to a termination. I have a friend who's first baby was breech, she tried a vaginal birth at her specialists recommendation, the baby got stuck and died. She changed doctors and insisted on cesareans for her next two births even though there was no medical reason to. If she'd been told 'no way' to a cesarean, maybe she'd have refused to have kids, maybe she'd have got over her trauma to try again; if she'd decided no more pregnacies and accidentally gotten pregnant, her fear of birth may have driven her to seek a termination, and if it wasn't legally available, perhaps she'd seek an illegal one.
My point is, I don't think we can fully understand someone's trauma over a situation because we're not them and probaby haven't had the same experience; and we don't know what they'd do if they feel trapped and not free to act as they'd choose to.

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replysue:01/28/2008 02:52 PM NZST
i know from personal experience that the advice given at these sessions is very biased towards making abortion acceptable or even inevitable
the people running the clinics are by virtue of their position not defending pro life

RE:pro life
replyHelen:01/28/2008 02:55 PM NZST
I feel that this is a question that can only really answered by those who it affects directly. Unless one has been in the position of wanting an abortion because the foetus is imperfect, how can you know what you would do? I doubt many parents abort without a lot of angst & as long as the counselling is sufficient who am I to say they should have the baby? Surely with all the violence towards children today every child should be a wanted child. A cliche I know, but nevertheless, there is truth in it. I have always had the idea that there should be some sort of a license to have a child so all children are properly parented. Oops, sorry, getting off the point there!

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyAngela:01/28/2008 03:03 PM NZST
Re: Forced to continue pregnacies... if there's pressure to cotinue and unwanted pregnancy, why would there not be pressure for the parents to raise the child? Personally, I could abort a seriously defect baby early in the pregnancy; if I was forced to have the child, I would feel obligated to raise it myself to ensure it was given the best possible care, and I would doubt the capability of foster/adoptive/State caregivers to do that. But there'd be residual feelings of resentment for sure. And some parents may act on those feelings, expressing them negatively towards the child. Already, some women (usually teens) who don't want babies but end up continuing the pregnancy, kill the babies either at birth or early on in their life. Some with seriously affected babies are even told by medical authorities to let the baby die (ie. Baby Miracle in Samoa). If PGD is available, some parents will want it, and if it's withheld from them, or if they're prevented from terminating when results are negative, won't they feel resentful & angry at not being allowed the choice?

RE:Let's consider approach 2: Life is a Gift
replyAngela:01/28/2008 03:15 PM NZST
Sue: you're right, most women probably wouldn't choos the backyard abortion given the risk. But some will, and whose call is it that the foetus' life is worth more than the mothers? What if it was a wanted baby but a medical condition meant the the pregnancy/birth would ensure the mother's death? Then is termination ok?
And if the mother avoids backyard abortions because of the risk or illegality and has the baby, then what? Others on here have already expressed the view that adoption in it's current form is not a positive opition, and will the mother get pressure to raise the child since she created it? And what's the father's contribution? And if the baby has serious health issues, there's LESS chance the parents will want to keep it, and less chance anyone else will either. Sure, some people are keen to adopt special needs children but most want a no-problems child. So then does the State have to take care of the unwanted children, either paying caregivers (and we already have had issues with abusive or unskilled caregivers & short supply) or creating instituition (also have had their share of bad-press & issues)? And I have to come back again to the cost - the money pit isn't bottomless. More money in this sector means less in others.
If we only have so much money to go to special needs kids, I'd rather it went to families raising kids they always wanted & would do anything for, not to resentful parents doing a half-hearted job of it.
Damn, this is SO complex.

RE:pro life
replyAngela:01/28/2008 03:20 PM NZST
I know we all keep going 'off track' but sometime I think we have to 'start' at a conclusion and work backwards. The more we discuss these things, the more I realise we will NEVER cover all eventualities and no-one will get everything they deem necessary, so even though a decison will not suit everyone, it will probably mean everyone gets some of what they want.
I would somewhat agree with 'how do you really know unless you've experienced it', but then once you've experienced it, are you so caught up in your own personal and emotional experience that it's difficult to see someone elses view or consider what is for the good of the greater community?

RE:pro life
replyAngela:01/28/2008 03:23 PM NZST
Helen, I'd love to see compulsory parenting test too! But I guess to do that, you'd have to be able to ensure conception wasn't possible without passing, which would mean compulsory contraception. There are ways we could ensure that but the outcry of Human Rights groups would be deafening!! And THEN we'd have all the fun of who makes the judgement call on what's a 'pass'!

costs of pro life
commentsue:01/28/2008 03:40 PM NZST
the costs seem to be - possible death of mother or baby, many more babies with diseases/defects, disaffection of parents forced to go through preganancy, possible infanticide, back street abortion
not sure of financial costs - would these be more or less ?
do pro lifers want the tests and if so is this consistent with their life at all costs - ie if the test is a risk

RE:pro life
replyHelen:01/28/2008 03:44 PM NZST
Angela, great to see some support for my parent testing idea. As for the Human Rights group objecting, surely every baby has a right to be born to parents who love it & understand it's needs? More Parenting classes in secondary schools would be a good start. If every baby was really wanted & there was lots of support available then there would be less need for abortions.

RE:costs of pro life
replyAngela:01/28/2008 04:29 PM NZST
In pure monetary terms, I'd say a proper medical termination was cheaper than fixing up a botched backstreet abortion. An a termination was cheaper that raising a child, special needs or not. But what about the other costs to society... if the illegal abortion mother dies and leaves behind other children, what's the cost to society of raising THEM? Apart from physical healing, what will mental healing cost (eg. counsellers, medications, ACC claims for being too disturbed from the event to return to work)?

RE:pro life
replyAngela:01/28/2008 04:43 PM NZST
My arguement against more education in schools, including parenting classes would be two-fold:
1. I send my kids to school for a scholastic education; it's my job as a parent to give them lifeskills. The curriculum is stretched already IMO with non-scholastic components.
2. We have quite a comprehensive sex education programme in schools now but unplanned pregnancies amongst teens continue to rise. I can't accept it's because we're not getting the message across: they're hearing it, but some don't take it onboard. In the USA they have the parenting classes with baby dolls etc.. which is further than we take it, but still their teen birthrates increase too.

And if they're not getting the 'don't get pregnant and here's how not to' message, why should we trust them to make decisions about what's best for themselves or their unborn child?

Benefits of approach 1: Life is a gift
questionSam:01/28/2008 05:51 PM NZST
So is it fair to say that you think people who support this approach in its strictest form would see the benefits as:
*Result in greater respect for life in all its forms
* Cause parents to have to accept responsibility for their contraceptive choices (or the lack thereof)
* Reduce the abortion rate
* Possibly reduce violence in the community by increasing respect for human life
* lead to greater acceptance and support for people who are born with disorders/ disabilities
* Save money by having fewer tests which could then be channelled into care for the disabled
Are there any other benefits that you think a supporter of this approach might raise in support of it? You don't have to agree with them- the point is what other people might say......

RE:Benefits of approach 1: Life is a gift
replysue:01/28/2008 06:04 PM NZST
when i lived overseas , children with whatever defect went along to school with the rest and the kids learnt early on that people were different - someone would be assigned to david who was blind to be his leader for the day, someone assigned to mustapha to help him walk, there was no blame no disgust at anothers diability and a real respect for differences and a willingness to be a part of the community with its problems at an early age
i have seen the way mainstreaming doesn't work here - maybe we have the wrong psyche accept less than perfect
this approach gives us the most scope to accept life in all its many forms and reduces the focus on being first,the best etc

RE:pro life
replyJane:01/28/2008 06:37 PM NZST
Going off the topic but I thought that most abortions were done where the woman already has some children and is likely to be in her 30's. The teenage pregnacy rate is another issue again, but they aren't the ones having most of the abortions.