TV's Frink said:
darth_ender said:
Well, I admit that upon my writing that, I wasn't considering genetic abnormalities. Nevertheless, I don't consider genetic abnormalities to be a reasonable factor as well. I have a brother with trisomy 21, aka Down's syndrome, so I am aware of them and their commonality. My brother's case is surprisingly profound, as most with Down's syndrome have higher functioning than he. We've suspected some autism has contributed to learning delays as well, but that's not really something they could diagnose in a person like him, as it's impossible to determine the etiology. My brother is 33, but his mentality seems to be perpetually stuck at the level of a 4 year old. But there is not a day of his life, pre- or post-birth, that I would consider him without the right to live as fulfilling and happy a life as possible.
I'm sorry to hear about your brother's situation, and of course I'm not trying to imply he would have been better off aborted. However, Trisomy 13 is generally much more deadly.
More than 80% of children with trisomy 13 die in the first year.
I have seen other statistics as high as 90-95%. And while a five minute google search failed me, I know the percentage of babies that don't even survive the birth is very high.
Trisomy 13 babies have extremely severe birth defects, assuming they survive to birth. I would never blame a parent for wanting to let nature take its course, but I would also never consider this reason to abort "unreasonable."
I am a believer in letting nature take its course. Now in nursing school, we have several people in the hospital who have signed advanced directives stating that they are DNRs--"do not resuscitate" patients. In other words, a patient may be suffering, but we don't kill them. A term which is starting to replace DNR is AND--"allow natural death." I like this better, and I feel the same should generally apply to a child as well. While I do see the reasoning of trisomy 13 and other genetic defect-related abortions, I personally feel that every effort should be put forth to try to save the child, and simply "allow natural death," should it come to that. There still are at least 5-10% of children who could live. I wanted to say more, but I've not got the time. I'll reply to other stuff later.