So which is it?
If a pregnancy was terminated for any reason, this heightened the risk of premature and very premature delivery in subsequent pregnancies.
If a previous pregnancy had to be terminated for any reason, that may increase the risk of premature rupture of the membrane, premature and very premature delivery in subsequent pregnancies.
If a previous pregnancy had to be terminated for any reason, premature birth was a risk in subsequent pregnancies.
And women who have had more than one abortion double their risk of having a "very" premature baby – classed as being born before 34 weeks.
Those who terminate a pregnancy are subsequently more likely to give birth prematurely, with two or more abortions more than doubling the odds.
Can you believe they are all talking about the same report report? It was the analysis of 75 different
studies from 1980 – 2008 presented at European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) annual meeting. Dr Robbert van Oppenraaij, from Erasmus MC University Medical Centre in Rotterdam was the leader of this report.
All of them say the same things in regards to a miscarriage:
They found that a history of one or more miscarriages nearly doubled the risk of pre-term rupture of the membrane that surrounds the baby in the womb, thereby increasing the chances of a premature delivery.
The researchers have found that a history of one or more miscarriages nearly doubles the risk in an ongoing pregnancy of preterm premature rupture of the membrane that surrounds the baby in the womb.
A history of one or more miscarriages nearly doubled the risk in an ongoing pregnancy of preterm premature rupture of the membrane that surrounds the baby in the womb, and increased the risk of a premature birth.
The study also looked at miscarriages, finding that having more than one almost doubled the likelihood of congen-ital malformations in the baby. It also nearly doubled the risk of pre-term rupture of the membrane that surrounds the baby in the womb.
The only article that didn’t discuss the miscarriage part of the study was the article that only focused on abortions and that was from the Daily Mail in the UK. This makes me believe they didn’t just pass over the abortion topic considering the Daily Mail has a bunch of statistics to go with their story along with names and places.
So lets look at the comparisons:
Heightened the risk vs. nearly doubled the risk
May increase the risk vs. nearly doubled the risk
Was a risk vs. nearly doubled the risk
Doubled the risk vs. doubled the risk
Hmm….me thinks I see a trend.
In any case the more a woman looses a pregnancy for any reason – natural or unnatural – her risks of having complications in pregnancy afterwards nearly doubled. It really doesn’t matter how the pregnancy ended, what matters is that it ended.
Why all the cloak and dagger? Why try to hide it? Why not just come out and tell the truth?
Wanna know why? I’ll tell you.
One in five UK pregnancies ends in a miscarriage. Last year 64,715 women had repeat abortions, up more than a fifth in a decade, official figures show.
Forty-six women in the UK have terminated eight or more pregnancies.
Scores of girls as young as 12 have abortions every year, Government figures show.
More than 450 under the age of 14 terminated pregnancies between 2005 and 2008, including 23 aged 12, Department of Health statistics reveal.
In the same period, 52 had at least their fourth termination before they were 18. Across all age groups, 64,715 repeat abortions were carried out last year, the most on record.
The figure included 46 women who had terminated at least eight pregnancies.
Research this year found that abortions on teenagers who have already had at least one termination had risen by almost 70 per cent since 1991.
Whoopsies! And this is what they have been telling women about to have an abortion:
Medical director Dr Patricia Lohr said: ‘Abortion is extremely safe. When we counsel women, we provide them with information about the potential for a slightly higher risk of miscarriage or early birth.’
So to lie or not to lie is the questions. Does abortion make it a heightened risk, an increased risk, just a risk, a slightly higher risk or nearly double the risk for complications in future pregnancies?
Loading ...
This reminds me of the Richard Nixon quote I found in my Newsweek today:
“There are times when an abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white. Or a rape.”
-Then-president Richard Nixon, on previously unreleased White House tapes, reacting to the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade
When you have a black and a white. Or a rape.
Ughhh, :headdesk:
Yeah, cause the mixing of the races and rape are on the same level. I won’t roll my eyes at this one cause I may roll them so far they don’t come back, but you get the idea.
Hmmmm….Yet, when we talk about Margaret Sanger we are supposed to “put” ourselves into “her” world to understand where she was coming from and that “everyone” believed in Eugenics back then so what she said is “okay”.
Now we have Nixon saying something that is even in one of the transcrips to a hearing leading up to the Roe V Wade case and he is a racist.
So, which is it? Put yourself in someone elses shoes and understand the time they lived in? Or ridicule them based on today’s views?
And I have to say I am puzzled as to how this post made you think of the Nixon statment. This post is talking about a cover up going on that only hurts women and everyone just looks the other way.
Personally, I would think there would be more outrage over that than over what a man said over 30 years ago. I guess you can say the coverup is a success.
Valerie, reminded me of it because of like you said, people lying, about how Roe v. Wade support had nothing to do with racism, etc. etc. Trying to make the situation out to something different than what it was.
Elizabeth, I let out a huge gasp of horror and Drew asked me what the matter was. I read it out to him, and the minute I read “Black and White” he shot me a look and said, “You’re kidding.” Sadly…
PIP,
There is an irony here with Nixon’s black and white statement. Pro-choicers claim that any reason is acceptable to choose to abort the baby… Birth defects (even minor), not a good time in my life, not ready, its Tuesday…. So that must mean race is and “OK” reason to terminate a baby with them. When the test comes to determine if they are homosexual, then that must be OK…. Look how fast society has eliminated 90%(?) of downs baby’s, just imagine how fast homosexuality will be wiped out.
The Catholic League had an excellent thought on this a week or so ago. They pointed out that it will pro-lifers that will be opposing eliminating homosexuals, bi/multi-racial, and special needs babies.
“Look how fast society has eliminated 90%(?) of downs baby’s, just imagine how fast homosexuality will be wiped out.”
“The Catholic League had an excellent thought on this a week or so ago. They pointed out that it will pro-lifers that will be opposing eliminating homosexuals, bi/multi-racial, and special needs babies.”
That’s a bit simplistic. The drive to eliminate groups comes from the predominant social view of those groups. In the time that abortion has been legal, it has become vastly more acceptable — and common — to be bi-racial; it has become vastly more acceptable to be gay (probably not more common, but more commonly in the open). Obviously no one currently has the power to abort a homosexual baby, but people have the power to abort bi-racial babies and they are having them in larger, not smaller, numbers than before.
Surely some people would abort a homosexual baby if they could, and no doubt pro-lifers would oppose that. But they wouldn’t be the only people morally opposed to the idea of aborting homosexuals, by a long shot. The drive to abort Down’s Syndrome babies comes from a lack of understanding about, or a laziness towards, the value of the contributions people with Down’s have to offer. There is, very generally speaking, no similar lack of understanding about, or laziness towards, the contributions of homosexuals, in the minds of liberal people who are more likely to be pro-choice.
Alexandra –
Down’s syndrom was once accepted just like homosexuality is now. What changed? Abortion. People now have a choice to have a child with Down’s or to abort and look at what we have. The research has shown 92% of all postive tests for Down’s syndrom end in abortion. (there is a 10% failure rate so that means 10% of those are more than likely healthy).
Stu and I were talking the other day and once upon a time every school had more than one child with Down’s. You would see at least one when you went to the mall. Even in my small school – 23 people graduated in my class there were 4 children with Down’s. None of them were adopted. Their parents loved them. Now a days your hard press to find anyone with it. Because it is being eliminated.
And it will be the pro-choicers who do eliminate all ‘defectives’. Pro-lifers don’t believe in abortion, so if they have one they aren’t pro-life are they? It is the “liberals” aka pro-choicers that fight and fight for the disabled to have better benefits than what they do now, yet they are the first to say that aborting them is fine as long as it is a choice.
You really think when the subject of death by abortion is homosexuality they will miraculously “see the light”? History proves otherwise.
Alexandra,
Go around and ask a few friends if they want a “gay son” or a “gay daughter”. It may be more socially acceptable, but it is not what Mom’s or Dad’s want.
Sorry, but it is not overly simplistic… The gay test is coming and as a pro-choicer, you can’t get upset because some one choose that as a reason to abort. It is their “choice” right… and it is not like this is happening because of the babies sex and parents are aborting girls…
O wait people already do that.
LOL Stu I know more than a few people who ‘want’ a gay son/daughter (as much as they care about the sexuality of their hypothetical children). And I’m not pro-choice.
Val, again, there used to be very few bi-racial kids. Abortion happened. More bi-racial kids. Why? Culture changed. You can’t talk about society eliminating the “defects” without talking about which deviations from the healthy straight white boys are considered defects at all in a given climate. For most people today, Down’s is considered a defect, tragically. For most people today, a bi-racial background is not, fortunately. For an increasing number of people, homosexuality is not. It’s NOT as simple as “pro-choicers will eliminate gays, pro-lifers will defend them” because there are many pro-choicers who would take issue with the targeted elimination of gays.
Go around and ask a few friends if they want a “gay son” or a “gay daughter”. It may be more socially acceptable, but it is not what Mom’s or Dad’s want.
Then they shouldn’t procreate at all. Having children isn’t about having little clones or having little extensions of yourself that will do everything you always want them to do. People who don’t want “gay kids” should grow up and realize there are a LOT worse things your kid could be than gay. Like a drug addict for example. I’d take a gay kid over a drug addict kid any day of the week.
I truly hope they don’t ever find the “gay gene” or the “gay test” for unborn babies as it will just be another thing to add onto the pile of people who just can’t deal with not having “perfect” children.
Alexandra,
We are not talking about a “what if” my son/daughter is gay. We are talking about my son/daughter “will be” gay. So are you hoping for that gay son/daughter?
This is a yes or no question.
Stu give me a break. I don’t hope for a gay kid any more or less than I hope for a straight kid. The sexuality of my hypothetical child only has meaning to me so far as it has the ability to make that child’s life difficult in different ways; not all that different from gender.
Alexandra,
Thanks for the cop out… People choose to abort by gender too.
It’s not a cop-out, Stu. I honestly have no real preference as to my child’s sexual orientation. It would be dishonest to say that I “want” a gay child. I don’t. I don’t “want” a straight child. I WANT whoever my child turns out to be. If someone told me my child was gay I would feel as though I’d just been told that she was going to be a redhead.
I know people choose to abort by gender, but you haven’t seen the female gender eliminated in the United States, have you? Have you seen bi-racial children eliminated in the United States, as you predicted pro-choicers will do?
Alexandra,
I didn’t ask what you would accept, I asked what you would choose… So answer the question… God gives you the choice to pick the path… Gay or straight? There is no other choice, pick one.
Oh and hair color will come too… In India, China they are aborting girls…. In the US the black population growth has been stunted due to the amount abortions.
I wouldn’t choose. That’s what you’re not getting. If someone said, “Choose or I’ll shoot you” I’d probably just close my eyes and point.
Stu, which would you choose, white or bi-racial? Since you equated bi-racial children with gay children with Down’s syndrome children, this question must apply to bi-racial children as well.
India and China are not the US. They abort girls because they have some seriously messed up views on gender. That is a different cultural climate than the US, which on the whole does not share those particular messed-up views — which was my point. People in the US do not view females as less valuable than men. In the past few decades people have finally come to view bi-racial children as being unquestionably equal in value to kids from a “single” race. Homosexuality is becoming more accepted, not less accepted.
Alexandra,
You coped out again… I would choose a white child, since that is what I and my wife are (Irish decendants). So if the child is bi-racial then that means she had an affair. I find it illogical that a person who sleeped with someone of a different race would abort a child for that or any reason.
If I can choose, I would choose a child that does not have down syndrome. Not because I view it as less, but that it is not what I would want for my child to have. That is no different that if my child was gay. It is not what I would choose for them….
I would also love to have a kid with the endurance of Lance Armstrong and the ability to play football like Peyton Manning…. But I don’t beleive there is a choice when it comes to a child. It is what it is…
Oh and I never said that I had a problem with bi-racial children. Just that in pro-choice terms it is the same arguement as aborting a child because of downs, hair color, or any other reason.
Elizabeth –
“Then they shouldn’t procreate at all. Having children isn’t about having little clones or having little extensions of yourself that will do everything you always want them to do.”
Isn’t that what abortion is all about though? “I don’t have time for a child” is the most popular reason to abort – isn’t that the same as saying “I don’t have time to have an extension of myself ruining my life.”
I agree with you on finding the gay gene. As a matter of fact, I pray they never find it every night. I’d prefer for this discussion to stay a hypothetical one and never reality.
Alexandra –
“Have you seen bi-racial children eliminated in the United States,”
Um….yea. Didn’t you watch the Maafa 21 post I put up? Do you think all the black babies are 100% black? Aren’t you aware that bi-racial blacks are lumped into the entire black category? It is happening every day. But, it’s no biggie, right? It’s just their choice, right?
“People in the US do not view females as less valuable than men.”
Um…not true. There are some states that are considering putting a ban on sex selection abortion. Why do you think they are doing that?
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/25/legislators-push-ban-sex-selection-abortions-human-cloning
http://www.slate.com/id/2188114/
Look up “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” and you’ll get more.
I’m just curious – and I’m not trying to be rude or anything so please don’t take it that way. Do you honestly think that we should wait until something becomes a “problem” before we do something about it? I.E. ignoring sex selective abortions until we have a decline in the female population – when it’s too late?
_________________
Also, isn’t anyone upset by the wording in the articles? Doesn’t anyone care about the lies that we are being fed on a daily basis? I just can’t figure out why there is no concern about this.
PIP –
“Elizabeth, I let out a huge gasp of horror and Drew asked me what the matter was. ”
I’m curious about something. Did you let out that same gasp of horror when you read:
“while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with the white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the Clinic he can go among them with enthusiasm and with knowledge, which, I believe will have far-reaching results among the colored people. His work in my opinion should be entirely with the Negro profession and the nurses, hospital, social workers, as well as the County’s white doctors. His success will depend upon his personality and his training by us.
The minister’s work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.
Margaret Sanger’s letter to Dr. Gamble in the 1920’s concerning the Negro Project.
http://www.2secondsfaster.com/2008/07/a-study-of-planned-parenthoods-dishonesty-about-margaret-sanger-part-two/
“If I can choose, I would choose a child that does not have down syndrome. Not because I view it as less, but that it is not what I would want for my child to have. That is no different that if my child was gay. It is not what I would choose for them….”
And that’s YOU. That’s not how everyone feels, about homosexuality. I don’t know anyone who would choose for their child to have down’s syndrome, but I know many people who wouldn’t care either way about their child’s sexuality. It is NOT a cop-out for me to feel differently than you on this subject.
Val –
“Um….yea. Didn’t you watch the Maafa 21 post I put up? Do you think all the black babies are 100% black? Aren’t you aware that bi-racial blacks are lumped into the entire black category? It is happening every day. But, it’s no biggie, right? It’s just their choice, right? ”
There are more bi-racial children than before. Individual children are being killed — of course — but the demographic itself is not being eliminated, as with Down’s syndrome. Demographic trends in the early 1990’s showed that bi-racial births were increasing faster than mono-racial births for the first time in history. I’m not really sure where the sarcastic attitude is coming from, since that’s not how I feel and I’m pretty sure you know that.
“I’m just curious – and I’m not trying to be rude or anything so please don’t take it that way. Do you honestly think that we should wait until something becomes a “problem” before we do something about it?”
No, I’m not talking about legality here. I don’t agree with abortion in general so of course I take issue with the legal aspect of the targeted abortion of homosexuals, women, bi-racial children, or people with Down’s syndrome. I hold my opinions on abortion regardless of the demographic problems that abortion can create in specific cultural climates. I am talking purely about the likelihood of the statement that as soon as a “gay gene” is identified, people will rush to eliminate gays and only the pro-lifers will stand in the way of that. The most radically pro-abortion people I know, people who think it’s irresponsible NOT to abort a Down’s syndrome child, are also those who tend to be the most strongly pro-homosexuality. I’m pretty sure some of them would rejoice at the news that their kid was gay.
Our society’s view on children with Down’s syndrome is abhorrent. Abortion amplifies that and encourages it, but did not create it.
“Also, isn’t anyone upset by the wording in the articles? Doesn’t anyone care about the lies that we are being fed on a daily basis? I just can’t figure out why there is no concern about this.”
I am upset by the wording in like 90% of the articles I read — didn’t mean to seem unconcerned, I’ve just been busy. It’s kind of amazing how much fudgy reporting goes on. A friend of mine runs a skeptic-themed blog (I don’t really know what to call her slant; she goes to those meetings for skeptics) with a specific focus on pop culture/media, and she used to focus mostly on stuff like this before she just got really irritated and had to switch things up a bit. “Eye-catching” headlines (usually claiming something about science) being basically contradicted in one sentence in the middle of the penultimate paragraph were another of her least favorite tactics.
“but I know many people who wouldn’t care either way about their child’s sexuality”
really? have you asked these ‘many’ people?
Alexandra –
The sarcasm stems from statistics. It’s the same as when people say “Late term abortion account for only 1.4% of all abortions”. Well that sounds low right? Well, 18,000 dead children is alot, wouldn’t you say? That is the number for 1.4% of all abortions.
Yes, in 1992 they said that bi-racial births grew 50%. That is less than 69,000 more bi-racial children born in one year vs the other. What they didn’t tell you is that they had changed the definition of biracial which included more people. Before, they just included children born to parents of two separate ethnic groups and then they added children born to couples that are biracial themselves. Statistically speaking, the growth wasn’t that much and still isn’t that much. Not as much as what it should. They estimate that there are less than 5 million biracial people in the United States.
Here is a really good article from USA Today that talks about how the acceptance isn’t really as high as people think. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-15-race_N.htm
I do hope that one good thing that comes from Obama’s pres. win is more acceptance. However, I live very close to the head location for the KKK. Yes, they are alive and well. Sad, huh?
The fact is that minorities account for 47% of all abortions in the United States. Whites are 53% of abortions. People who are one race is is 97.9% of America. Two or more races is 2.1% of the population. Considering the “acceptance” started in the 1970’s, that really isn’t that much.
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=&geo_id=01000US&_geoContext=01000US&_street=&_county=&_cityTown=&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=null&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null®=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=
(BTW – they say there are appx. 5 million biracial people, however that would mean that there are less than 1% biracial people in the US going by the number of people in the US now. I’m pointing this out so everyone can see how important the census is – considering the census count is going on right now – get the word out! It is very important that we do have an accurate count!)
“The most radically pro-abortion people I know, people who think it’s irresponsible NOT to abort a Down’s syndrome child, are also those who tend to be the most strongly pro-homosexuality.”
That is our point. Again – it is the same people that scream at the government every time there isn’t enough handicap parking spaces in the new Mall parking lot that say aborting a handicap person is a choice! It is the liberal’s who pretty much keep the plight of the handicap in the media. Think about it.
I’m strongly pro-ADHD, yet I wished for a child who didn’t have it. (I know how hard it is to live with it.) ADHD could be one of the disabilities tested inutero one day – what would a person do who has heard all the stories of how hard it is with ADHD, but doesn’t have it themselves, when they discover their child is inflicted with it?
Also, my daughter has verbal dyspraxia. If this was tested inutero do you really think people are going to want a child who may not be able to speak? That there beginnings in life are going to be with more speech therapists than they can count.
Anytime you bring up a situation that means “a harder life” people say abort. Why do you think homosexuality is going to be any different?
This is not going to be a public decision. Just like the biracial jokes in Manhattan, Brooklyn and New Jersey aren’t said in public. Just like the gay jokes in San Francisco aren’t said in public – but the feelings are still there.
“The sarcasm stems from statistics.”
Okay, well then I will bow out until there isn’t random sarcasm coming my direction, especially for reasons entirely unrepresentative of my views on abortion. Have fun here!
“Yes, in 1992 they said that bi-racial births grew 50%”
I do have to just touch on this. According to the 1992 report, multi-racial babies grew by 260% from the early 1970’s, compared to 15% for monoracial babies. Numbers for black-white bi-racial babies specifically were significantly higher. And while 2% of the population may not seem like a lot, it’s about equivalent to the percentage of Jews — not an insignificant number of people, and not an insignificant amount of growth, especially in the face of accusations that the demographic is being eliminated.
I was unaware that awareness and accommodation of handicapped people was because of “the liberals.” Or that those 90% of aborted Down’s syndrome children were aborted by liberals — what, do “liberals” conceive Down’s-afflicted children at significantly higher rates?
Val,
My mom showed me that article on biracial attitudes I think about a month ago. I really liked how that particular couple handled the whole situation..they more handled it with humor than anything else which is probably what I would do. I’ve gotten the “Are you babysitting” thing more than once. *eyeroll* I’ve also gotten very polites “Is your child biracial” which I think is a far safer thing to say, and winds up with the person not having to extract their foot from their mouth.
EW, Valerie, that is gross. Margaret Sanger was a creepy lady.
Alexandra –
I think you need to re-read. Very limited sarcasm was in my the response to you.
“According to the 1992 report, multi-racial babies grew by 260% from the early 1970’s, compared to 15% for monoracial babies. ”
Thanks, you just proved my point. In the 1970’s the biracial community grew by leaps and bounds. It isn’t growing at that rate anymore now that abortion is mainstream.
“I was unaware that awareness and accommodation of handicapped people was because of “the liberals.” Or that those 90% of aborted Down’s syndrome children were aborted by liberals — what, do “liberals” conceive Down’s-afflicted children at significantly higher rates?”
Oh please, give me a bit of a break here. There are multiple organizations that are for “handicapped” rights and the majority of them are democratic supporters. Even I will admit that the democrats have done far more for handicapped rights than republicans. I’m unsure why you would have difficulties accepting that when I don’t have a problem with it.
“Conservatives” by nature do not abort. Conservatives by nature are pro-life. The majority of abortion rights strongholds are “liberals”. I’m not sure how much more I can spell this out for you.
I’m not sure how this will be taken, but I usually make a point of not commenting on children with adults if they look to be of a different race than the parents. I’m not sure what this makes me that I have to make a conscience effort not to do that, but I figure that they are sick of the questions.
I have more quotes from her that are just like that. It really is sick – and not “mainstream” thinking from back then.
““Conservatives” by nature do not abort. Conservatives by nature are pro-life. The majority of abortion rights strongholds are “liberals”. I’m not sure how much more I can spell this out for you.”
Then I would really like to know why 90% of Down’s syndrome babies are conceived by liberals. It is not true that “conservatives” don’t abort. Adamant pro-lifers usually don’t abort, and adamant pro-lifers tend to be politically conservative; but obviously there are varying degrees of pro-life, because 90% of Down’s-afflicted babies aren’t conceived by pro-choicers either. Of course the majority of pro-choicers are liberal in their politics, no one is disputing that; but liberals are not solely behind the elimination of Down’s-afflicted children. Unfortunately this problem runs deeper than politics.
I don’t have a problem with you claiming that disability rights is a “liberal” cause. I’ve just honestly never heard that. From what I’ve always seen it’s pretty much a nonpartisan issue.
I saw the sarcasm in your response to me. Yes, I think it’s TOTALLY OKAY for people to CHOOSE to abort children so long as the children are the same race as the parents. If that’s being directed at me just for the fun of it, then yeah, I will probably take off for a bit, because I freaking hate that stuff.
captcha:
She sashayed past dusk –
6. 7. 8:55,
but at 9: lights out.
(sashayed, 7.8:55)
Alexandra –
“Yes, I think it’s TOTALLY OKAY for people to CHOOSE to abort children so long as the children are the same race as the parents. If that’s being directed at me just for the fun of it, then yeah, I will probably take off for a bit, because I freaking hate that stuff.”
Where did I say that? If I did, it’s not what I was thinking. I thought we were discussing the society as a whole, and not necessarity individual people.
RE: Children with Down’s being aborted. I’m not saying that conservatives do not abort these children – what I’m saying is that it is the conservatives who are actively working to protect them and the liberals who are actively working to keep them as a target.
You are 100% right when you say that this goes deeper than politics. We have a portion of the medical community that bully women into aborting by giving them horror stories of the worse case scenerio of what Down syndrom is. It’s really sad. There is a teenaged boy with Down Syndrom that always comes up to me and gives me a hug when I am at the Respect Life table during Mass. He says “Thank you” everytime. He understands that many people think he should have never been born. He is the sweetest person I’ve met in a long time.
Val,
I think it makes you a compassionate person that you would rather not say anything at all than develop foot in mouth disease from having said something (even unintentionally) stupid.
So I may be jumping into something that I don’t know quite what is going on, but re: the 90% of babies with down’s are aborted statistic- it is my understanding that that statistic is 90% of all PRENATAL DIAGNOSED babies with down’s are aborted. In other words, if my understanding is correct, this shouldn’t be too surprising because the reason many people actually undergo an amniocentesis is to find out whether or not their baby has down’s so they can then kill it. I think those who would not kill their baby either way don’t bother to undergo amnio. There was a small concern that our first child might have had down’s, but we declined to undergo an amnio because it wouldn’t have made a difference.
I don’t know if that helps anything in this conversation, but I think that is the case at least.
Excellent point Bobby… and proof of a nice statistical shift of probabilities.
Bobby –
You are right that it is the babies that are tested that get aborted. With a 10% failure rate with the test, there are many people aborting “normal” babies on the chance the baby could be “defective”. It’s really sick if you think about it.
You are also right about who gets the test. I declined it too – I had previous complications and I was over 35 when I got pregnant with my daughter so I was asked if I wanted one because I was “at a higher risk” than the norm. Once your far enough along an ultra sound can detect if there is a chance of Downs Syndrom (actually, it is more accurate than the amnio but the likelihood of finding out that way isn’t until the third trimester.) We did do the ultra sound “test” (they measure certain bones to see the density) but that was just so we could be prepared – I.E. get the baby in the recomended therapies before birth, advise the pediatrition….that sort of thing.
I have been called a racist because I make an effort not to say something. So, I guess just noticing it makes people racist according to some. It is a strange world we live in.
Medical director Dr Patricia Lohr said: ‘Abortion is extremely safe. When we counsel women, we provide them with information about the potential for a slightly higher risk of miscarriage or early birth.’
This is like saying “contraception is extremely effective”.
It sounds like a reasonable risk to take until something happens to you – then you’re shocked because the doctors said there was minimal risk. The doctor is misrepresenting the truth to the patient and the patient pays in more ways than one.
Valerie,
Bobby –
You are right that it is the babies that are tested that get aborted. With a 10% failure rate with the test, there are many people aborting “normal” babies on the chance the baby could be “defective”. It’s really sick if you think about it.
I never opted for testing either. I know that doctors are sometimes wrong… but I didn’t realize that there is a 10% failure rate for the Down’s Syndrome test. Wow, that’s HUGE. Are there similar failure rates for other prenatal tests?
I don’t understand how there can be a 10% failure rate for the Down’s test.
You get a cell sample- shmear it on a friggin’ slide and then count the dang chromosomes. If you have an extra chromosome that is a pretty good indication that somethin’ ain’t gonna be right.
Srsly.
Or you’d think that by now we’d be able to do something else other than cytogenetics and karyotyping- that’s way too old school. Molecular diagnostics is where it’s at.
@Janet: I’m guessing here as I’ve never had a prenatal test (and hopefully never will, huzzah!)- but most genetic screens are either done via karyotyping- where they count out the chromosomes and look for missing or extra chromosomes or Chromosomes of Unusual Size (COUS) (which are indicative of translocations or deletions) or a molecular test is done where they screen the genes using PCR and sequencing.
I’m going to be taking some courses on the diagnostic tests and what not for my new program, so I shall keep thee informed as I learn more about them as we do have a class in cytogenetics (counting and ID’ing chromosomes) and molecular diagnostics and several others…
Are there similar failure rates for other prenatal tests?
Well my mom had a baby born with spina bifida, and this was back in the 80’s when not a lot was really known about amnio’s and such. Well that baby died when it was born obviously, and then my mom got pregnant with me, and she did the amnio to know of course because of her risk. And the test turned up positive with me as well. Well I think we all know I don’t have spina bifida BUT what they didn’t know then that I believe they do now is that, for spina bifida, the mother will always test positive because of the one child she had that did have it. Of course they did not know that then, and my mom just said enough tests, that she just didn’t want to know because she was going to have me anyway.
So to answer your question Janet, I imagine the amnio has failure rates when it comes to a defect like spina bifida, I’m not sure about the others though.
Elizabeth,
I’m sorry for your and your Mom’s loss.
Rae,
Your class sounds pretty interesting.
Thanks both of you for your responses.
Rae –
I don’t think the Down syndrome test is done with just a smear (at least what I think a smear is – veterinary laboratory medicine is usually very old school as most people don’t have the money for the fancy shmancy stuff for their pets). I think the cells have to be cultured first, don’t they? Perhaps this is when the “false” positive can happen? I’m just guessing on that as I never have done those kinds of tests. I do know that after it is cultured it is photographed and the chromosomes counted. I would assume that a computer does the counting? This is how I get the guess that it is in the culture process that the error occurs.
I do know that there is an increase in using the FISH test – is that a molecular diagnosis? All I know is that they use some sort of florescent light…… I’ve tried reading up on it, but it goes way over my head!
Keeping us informed would be awesome! As you know this stuff fascinates me!
@Val: I’m going to pop in the shower real quick but when I’m done I’ll write up a nice response to this.
For the record the “shmear” was meant glibly- that’s not really how they do it. :-p
“I do know that there is an increase in using the FISH test – is that a molecular diagnosis? All I know is that they use some sort of florescent light…… I’ve tried reading up on it, but it goes way over my head!”
FISH is a bizarre hybrid of cytogenetics and molecular diagnostics. It stands for Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization- meaning it’s a fluorescent dye that hybridizes (or incorporates itself) in to whatever you want (usually DNA or RNA) in a live culture. What I’m guessing that they do is that they have a probe that is specific for a unique sequence found on chromosome 21- and from there they count the number of bright spots that occur. The bright spots indicate that the probe has bound to the sample.
Based on my brief examination of the technique it seems pretty solid and a bit easier than traditional karyotyping. My high school biology teacher (who was rather young) told us she has to do karyotyping by hand- they would take the sample, arrest it with colchicine, Giemsa stain the chromosomes and then cut out EACH INDIVIDUAL CHROMOSOME and match it with its partner based on the banding patterns (Giemsa stains are evil- I’ve never done one but I’ve looked at the results of them…good grief screw that! lol).
They have more fancy-shmancy methods now using fluorescent labels like FISH or other fluorescent labels that are specific per chromosome.
I’m guessing that the error and subsequent rate of false positives could be becuase the probes they are using aren’t as specific as they’d like because each human gene isn’t exactly identical so they have to use degenerate primers (primers that have some leeway in where they bind by altering the sequence of the probe, making it less specific) in order to catch all the positives which also leads to the false positives.
However, I am certain I will be learning both of these techniques in my new program come this fall- so I will look at my textbooks at that point to confirm this.
Rae –
Thanks! I might be understanding a bit….maybe…perhaps….oh, heck – I’m still confused!
With how they do Karyotyping I’m impressed the false positive rate is so low!
I did read an artilce on the FISH thingy and it said that it wasn’t as “specific” as the karyotyping is but works for basic testing of chromosomes. I have no idea if that is right though as it wasn’t a medical journal I read that in.
Now you got me even more interested in this! ug…. and to think, I almost majored in biotechnology!
@Val: There’s still time! It’s where all the big bucks are and it’s super cool.
In my old university lab they were trying to use FISH in order to compare the genomes of a novel species of bacteria a member of our lab discovered behind our university’s student center which was related to the species we worked on in the lab. They were making probes to the known species and then were going to see if it could hybridize with the new species which would help determine how similar the species were.
I’m actually thinking about looking at PhD programs in molecular biology…hmmmmm.
I think the coolest thing I ever did was genetic studies on fruit fly’s which really isn’t very cool…….
The chemistry classes scare me! That is why I keep bailing out on that major.