Quite frankly it doesn’t matter what the man upstairs thinks because we are talking about civil law, not the relationship between a woman and whatever deity she believes in, if she’s a believer at all.

What “god wants” is a useless political argument. I’ll pay attention to a god’s desires and political views once: 1) someone can provide evidence of its existence; 2) they can demonstrate that the views they attribute to that god actually come from it; and 3) I see some citizenship papers for that god.

Is that God’s plan?

Has anyone actually read the Bible? God’s something of an asshole…just like the fundies.

That’s a particularly flattering picture of Joe Solomnese, don’t you think? I mean, considering Peter LaBarbera is a total hetero and all, I’m really surprised he didn’t go with something else.

That’s a particularly flattering picture of Joe Solomnese, don’t you think?

Yes, it is.

In all seriousness—that situation was about a choice your mother made based on her beliefs and personal circumstances - she wanted a child and it didn’t matter if her child was born with special needs. However, that situation cannot be compared to, for instance, a woman who is raped.

It also can’t be compared to a woman who decides that she simply can’t handle a special-needs child. Not every family can handle the kinds of stresses a special-needs child brings to a family, and they ought not be condemned if they choose to terminate a pregnancy because of that. And it doesn’t matter if the stresses are economic or emotional.

A family very close to me had a child—not Down’s Syndrome, but with a genetic disease that generally kills the child before its six months old unless there’s heroic medical measures taken—and their child made it five and a half years. When she got pregnant again about three years into the first child’s illness, she had the fetus tested and the results came back that the fetus had the same disease. She had an abortion because she couldn’t handle a second special-needs child, and I respect, even honor that decision.

When it comes down to it, I don’t question any woman who has an abortion. It’s not my place to do so. And even if I thought her reasons for having one were despicable, I still wouldn’t think of getting in her way—her body, her choice. And if people like LaBarbera had any real faith at all, they’d leave whatever judgment is to be passed on those decisions to the God they claim to believe in.

Wait!?

LaBarbera is actually publishing something that is even tangentially related to actual families? Not that he’s right, but since when does he even consider anything except teh (leather) buttsex?  Must be the Obama effect.

Of course, other group of people singled out for extinction because they’re not perfect would be women who have health problems that make pregnancy anywhere from ill-advised to suicidal.  But nah, they don’t count.

“The twin evils of homosexuality and abortion”

I want that on a shirt now.

I’ve had 3 abortions - three. While I’m hardly indifferent about any of them, though so many years afterward I rarely think about them, I’m anything but “haunted” by my decision(s). What I’d like to ask Peter is how many he’s had.

Really, he ought to stick to the God decrees personhood at the moment of conception argument, and leave the emotional threat out of it. But then all good “moral values” conservatives always resort to fear-mongering, do they not?

LaBarbera is quite possibly being disingenuous when he talks about his little brother; unless his brother was born in the 1970s or later, amniocentesis would not have been offered to his mother regardless of her age.

“I hate to break it to you, but that’s a recipe for disaster that will increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and cases of STDs. Is that God’s plan?”

Simple answer from those whose entire understanding and practice of their religion no longer bears any resemblance at all to what is found in their holy book: YES!

...

“Prenatal tests seem to be evil now.  Jebus.”

...remember, they believe mankind’s downfall began when we learned of good and evil.  So promoting ignorance as a “solution” to problems is disappointing, but unsurprising…

God’s plan is simple.  We are responsible for our our actions and our own conscience.  We are NOT responsible to any human being or their laws or regulations.

I boggle at their claim that Pro-Choicers want to somehow force other people to have abortions if their baby would be born with special needs. I mean, ‘singled out for extinction’? Seriously?!

How old is Jimmy LaBarbera? 

Because if he’s older than 30, Peter LaBarbera is absolutely right: Their mother didn’t consider the prenatal test that could have been the prelude to an abortion.  Tests like that weren’t available before the 80s.

My modest proposal which would lead to nearly universal support for abortion: Require that every father of every child cared for by a mother living alone must provide substantial weekly monetary support for that child through 18 years of age or the end of college, whichever comes last. Child support will, of course, increase when the child enters college. Or, of course, the father is welcome to raise the child himself, if the mother agrees.

Fathers who do not pay their required monetary support voluntarily will speedily have their child’s $$ taken from their paychecks or accounts. Fathers who contest paternity will be subject to genetic testing. If child support is deemed appropriate and is then not forthcoming, said father will be subject to jail time. /snark off

Every child, IMHO deserves to be wanted, and cared for by as many loving people as possible. Barring that, the spectre of some guy actually having to take some real responsibility for every kid that’s born might clarify the issues a bit. It’s nothing compared to raising a kid, but it might speak to many where they live—it would put, as they say, some of their skin in the game.

And I want to know—why are deadbeat dads allowed to be deadbeats? Where’s the outrage? Shouldn’t these guys be picketed and given some sidewalk counseling about the sanctity of the obligations to their offspring. Yeah, right…...

I boggle at their claim that Pro-Choicers want to somehow force other people to have abortions if their baby would be born with special needs. I mean, ‘singled out for extinction’? Seriously?!

They assume that we, like themselves, want to force our viewpoints onto everyone.

What “god wants” is a useless political argument. I’ll pay attention to a god’s desires and political views once: 1) someone can provide evidence of its existence; 2) they can demonstrate that the views they attribute to that god actually come from it; and 3) I see some citizenship papers for that god.

Amen! I though that was totally worth repeating.

I think the religious right has it’s hands full because “god said so” doesn’t cut it anymore. Especially in this day and age it’s way to hard to question and even *if* there is a god then which version of this bodiless deity is correct?

My wife had a number of prenatal tests done before my first son was born.  The results said the child might be retarded.  We were told that there are many false positives with that test, went on with it, and had a son who is as normal as can be (though above average, of course.)  We could have had further tests done to pretty much eliminate the uncertainty, but were willing to risk having a child who wasn’t “normal”.  We were young, foolish, inexperienced as parents, had a special needs adopted child already, and felt ready for anything.  She didn’t get all of those tests with the next two children.  And they’re fine, too.

I don’t know what the specific test was, so I can’t give a blanket statement suggesting that people should mistrust prenatal testing, but I do know that in that one case it didn’t give good results.

Also: special needs children may be a blessing to some, but to my ex-wife and I the special needs child we had made us miserable.  She eventually ran away, we tried to let her live with the few relatives who were willing to try, and she quickly burned most of her bridges.  She was emotionally abused, neglected, had addiction issues, and was otherwise a lovely little liar and charmer.  I wish her well, but with her unfinished high school education and her heroin addiction I haven’t much hope for her.  Reading the post about puppy mills and all the hopeful statements regarding rehabilitation made me want to scream about my attempted rescue.  It’s nice to think that all hurt animals want love, but I really think some just want to bite just a little bit more.  You can’t make something love you if it doesn’t even understand why it would want love.  I offer all the hope and encouragement in the world to those who are willing to try, but I’m through with that.  Yes it has made me bitter, but there isn’t anyone who can make me believe I didn’t try.

Damnit, that should have been “to my ex-wife and ME”.  And to think English is my native language….

It’s obvious LaBarbera’s never heard of the older brother effect, where the number of older full brothers or (presumably, if caused by prenatal effects) uterine half-brothers a man has, the greater his likelihood of being homosexual.

I quote from an online anthropology tutorial (emphasis added):

There is no clear explanation as to why societies are permissive or restrictive in regards to homosexuality.  However, there are two interesting correlations.  First, societies that strongly forbid abortion and infanticide are likely to be equally intolerant of homosexuality.  Second, societies that have frequent severe food shortages are more likely to allow homosexuality.  An implication is that homosexuality may be tolerated and even encouraged when there is severe population pressure.  Heterosexual abstinence and other birth control methods would be expected to be common then also….

Implicit in his diatribe is a desire for the only sex to be procreative sex. That would lead to population growth and population pressure. Based on the above you can see where that is leading: a situation where homosexuality and abortion thrive.

Social conservatives; doing everthing they can to increase the number of abortions and homosexual men.

It’s obvious LaBarbera’s never heard of the older brother effect, where the number of older full brothers or (presumably, if caused by prenatal effects) uterine half-brothers a man has, the greater his likelihood of being homosexual.

I always thought the finger-length ratio study was a fun one. (apparently, they’ve failed to replicate it)  It’s also due to in-utero hormonal effects on fetal development. But my favorite part was how European professional footballers were reported to have a similar finger-length ratio.  I’ll get Freddie Ljungberg yet!!!!

Thankfully, my mother never even considered the prenatal test that could have been the prelude to an abortion

Or, you know, a prelude to being prepared to raise a special needs child.  It’s good to have the time to consider decisions that might have to be made and make sure insurance and other things are in place.

Funny how he’s linking minority rights together as evils.  Seems treating your neighbor, be s/he homosexual or with an unwanted pregancy, as you would want to be treated isn’t quite what Peter wants Jesus to have been talking about.

  Also: special needs children may be a blessing to some, but to my ex-wife and I the special needs child we had made us miserable.

I hate how the term “special needs” is used as a catch-all for everything from a cleft palate to severe developmental disabilities. A kid with Fetal Alcohol Effect, and perhaps a co-existing psychological problem, may act impulsively and without regard for consequence. These same behaviors are pretty rare in people with, say, Down’s Syndrome.

And some people have character flaws that have nothing to do with disability. Sometimes people choose to behave badly no matter what kind of support they get. It’s not because they’re disabled or lacking in the love of family, but simply because they’re…well…jerks.

I worked with one client for a year who never learned a thing despite being capable of it. This individual was, in my estimation, a malinger with a long (and documented) history of abusing services for people with disabilities. I worked on job and social skills with the person, only to have that individual flub the long-awaited job trial by showing up late and taking 30-minute bathroom breaks several times per shift. Said person lasted one-and-a- half days before being sent packing, after responding to a supervisor’s complaint about bathroom breaks with a graphic description of explosive diarrhea. *sigh*

A lot of other people, with far more significant disabilities, were able to find suitable employment in the community without much fuss or drama – and they, despite their limitations, were usually able to keep their jobs through the six-month follow-up period.

I kind of agree with Porno Pete about how some people treat the prospect of having a kid with (for example) Down’s Syndrome – and quite frankly, I think the medical community perpetuates certain myths because doctors themselves lack information about the future prospects of people with disabilities.

Instead of railing against reproductive rights, however, Pete would be better served by working for positive change within the medical community; for the dissemination of timely and accurate information on disabilities to potential parents. But when has the far right ever passed up an opportunity to forgive ignorance if it gives them an excuse to control people?

“Truly, these people do not care about actual children, only fetuses.”

Oh, I completely agree. I would just like to see some laws put into place that would force these types to “put their money where their mouth is” and watch their views change accordingly. Their hypocrisy is appallingly evident.

Ms are the Es - They do not either care about fetuses. If they did, they’d have supported S-CHIP, and they’d literally be screaming bloody murder about America’s craptacular infant mortality rate.

What they care about is being allowed to micromanage everyone else calls their sex life and what LaBarbera calls elevating mankind’s selfish desires over God’s will.

Devil’s Advocate Onepointone,

Agreed on unhappiness with the use of “special needs” as a catch-all, but what’s a better term?  “Normal” kids have enough needs in the first place, and “extra needy” suggests a character flaw (maybe accurately suggests, but few would say it’s always the kid’s fault.)  “Special needs” also leads to the responded cliche of “All children are special” which is supposed to be meaningful and heartening, but is as empty as most comments delivered to parents struggling with a child who isn’t “normal” in some very important way.

I do know one thing: if given the upfront choice of abortion or years of financial and emotional misery that can tear apart a family, I’d opt for the abortion.  I’ve had one of those extra-special blessed children, and I still love her, but I can’t advocate adopting a child of “special needs” or whatever you want to call it.  I wish I could, since those who are willing to try to parent such children are far too rare in this world, but I can’t.

You know, it’s not easy raising a normal child, and special needs take a lot of extra effort.  Besides money, you have to fight for your child’s rights.  My mom managed to get my younger brother, who has Down syndrome, into the Chicago Public School system in 3 weeks, which was unheard of b/c she wouldn’t back down.  Normally they’re “backed up” and don’t want to give you an appointment for evaluation for months.

Now there’s a law saying they have to respond within 10 days, unless the parent waives the 10 day waiting period (which no one should EVER do).  But back then, some poor kid who’d been waiting six months or more must have been bumped b/c my mom made them do their jobs for her son.

Down syndrome is easy to detect. and easy to detect early, which means most of the children with DS are aborted.  I wish there was more education and information available, so that people wouldn’t make a knee jerk response and abort so often upon diagnosis, but it’s hard to figure out a way to do that.

It has to be more of a cultural shift, so that DS isn’t looked at as such a tragedy, b/c I don’t think you should hold any individual mother hostage or force her to watch videos or attend counseling.  I know some areas have support groups of families who have members with DS, who offer to talk to potential mothers, and that’s fine as long as it is presented as an option.  I even think those types of groups should be ‘advertised’ at the time the doctor is bringing up the tests, and not just brought up if the finding is positive.

Because Down Syndrome is still a major pain in the ass, even if the physical/mental symptoms are light.  There’s no way to tell, in utero, how severe the mental retardation will be.  You can tell if the heart/gastro-intestinal issues are severe with ultrasound, but not the brain.

That’s not a decision anyone can force another to make.  You cannot force someone to carry a child they do not wish to raise.  I’d like to think all people are strong enough that faced with a problem, they stop being shallow and do what needs to be done.  But people are assholes.  It’s actually a good thing when people know they are assholes and don’t make the situation worse.

Caren,

Agreed.  People want healthy children when they’re best able to raise them.  And some are willing to have whatever comes out, and I can’t argue with their positive right in these matters any more than I can argue with someone’s negative right.  Choice involves babies, no babies, fewer babies, or even custom-made genetic superbabies if that’s what someone want in a child.  I commend as honorable and kind and brave anyone who goes in to a parenting situation knowing that a child isn’t going to arrive “normal” even though I was once a fool to be one of them.  And though I want to complain about your use of the term “asshole”, I can’t argue against it, either.  Sometimes even normal people are needy, and having an extraneedy person around often leads to a great deal of unhappiness no matter how brave, honorable, and kind the people who aren’t going through what you’re dealing with say you are.

Let ‘em be born and then kill them the first time they backtalk you.  It’s clearly allowed (encouraged) in the scriptures.

Enjoy.

I’m not sure why these folk like to idolize and enshrine their down syndrome kin while demonizing people who support reproductive rights.  One of those reproductive rights is ... NON TERMINATION!!!

If they REALLY think people should not abort people with down syndrome, they would work to force anybody who counsels people trying to make a tough decision to have proper certification and information that is less than 20 years old.  They aren’t interested in going after the people who read the ultrasounds and want you to know how any slight defect in a child will make your life a living hell (even when it won’t and their info is old and carefully selected to scare - one friend referred to these people as “neonatal eugenicists”) - they want to go after the providers of abortion instead.  I know what I was told was bullshit because I have a close friend who works with families and people with down syndrome - and that the same ass clowns didn’t listen to me when I told them that their “dates” were WRONG.

This is a case where giving people accurate information would possibly reduce the abortion rate - but accurate information and reducing abortion rate isn’t their game, obviously.  They want to harass and disempower women.

The S-CHIP point is well taken.  One of the reasons people end pregnancies where children have substantial congenital or genetic issues is because the care these children require may not be covered.  This is when they have been given proper information on the implications of the situation ...

LaBarbera’s got it all wrong. God isn’t anti-choice. She told me just the other day that She is adamantly pro-choice, partly because of how hard She had it when She was pregnant with the Universe, and partly because She aborted three Universes before She became pregnant with this one, for various reasons. One had a Planck constant too law to be compatible with the creation of stable matter. Another time, She didn’t have enough energy to produce a Big Bang and didn’t want to have a Universe unless She could provide it with all the space and time it deserved. The third time, She just didn’t want to have a Universe right then. If She had had any of those three Universes, She would never have gotten pregnant with this one—we owe the existence of everything we know to God’s freedom of choice! Thus, to oppose abortion rights is one of the gravest blasphemies, for in so doing, you imply that God’s decisions in when and how She created the Universe were wrong.

Why no, Mr. LaBarbera, I can’t prove any of that. Can you prove yours?

Sorry, that should be: ...a Planck constant too low to be compatible… etc.

Oh, and just btw, pretty much the main reason infants born with Down syndrome survive into adulthood is by thwarting the Will Of God<tm> in the form of a shunt that equalizes CSF pressure. It’s been standard for decades.

It also can’t be compared to a woman who decides that she simply can’t handle a special-needs child. Not every family can handle the kinds of stresses a special-needs child brings to a family, and they ought not be condemned if they choose to terminate a pregnancy because of that. And it doesn’t matter if the stresses are economic or emotional.

I used to think that if I was going to have a baby with Downs Syndrome or any other genetic disorder, I wouldn’t have an abortion. But then I worked with people with developmental disabilities, and I changed my mind. Downs Syndrome and other developmental disabilities aren’t just about mental retardation. A bunch of other psychological and physical disorders are comorbid with Downs Syndrome. I don’t think I’d be able to deal with that, and I wouldn’t want to choose that life for my child.

And what the hell is “abortion on-demand?” Do I get that free with my digital cable subscription? Seriously, these anti-choicers don’t get it at all. I mean, you do have to confirm the pregnancy and make an appointment and all that stuff.

Agreed on unhappiness with the use of “special needs” as a catch-all, but what’s a better term?

Scrap the term altogether. When referring to the disabilities of a specific individual, use the proper names for them as opposed to merely saying ‘special needs.’ That doesn’t mean anything.

People with diabetes have “special” needs. Pregnant women have “special” needs. Seniors have “special” needs. Even if there’s some overlap, the special needs for these groups differ from category to category and from individual to individual.

It would be more accurate, and more helpful, to say a person needs additional support in areas such as dressing, grooming, or cooking etc. Or, if information about those needs isn’t germane to the conversation, don’t mention it at all. Variation among humans is normal. There’s nothing special about it.

I do know one thing: if given the upfront choice of abortion or years of financial and emotional misery that can tear apart a family, I’d opt for the abortion.

It’s not an either/or kind of thing, and it’s not dependent on whether a kid has a disability or not.

I’ve had one of those extra-special blessed children, and I still love her, but I can’t advocate adopting a child of “special needs” or whatever you want to call it.

You’re essentially tarring all people with disabilities as undesirable because of your experience with one child who had emotional problems. And this is yet another reason why I hate the term “special needs” – it allows average people to treat their disabled peers as the defective parts in some homogeneous “special needs” junk pile rather than as individuals. 

I wish I could, since those who are willing to try to parent such children are far too rare in this world, but I can’t.

No. Parents of kids with disabilities who are nonetheless happy with their lives and their children are not rare heroes. They’re average people, and they’re more common than you seem to think.

DA1.1, I was talking mostly about my experiences, true, but I really can’t talk about too many others’ experiences since I’m kind of out of the loop.  And I agree that it’s best to mention the specific “special” need, but still see a need for a shorthand term for some instances.  I wasn’t tarring all people with disabilities as undesirable, just the ones that are.  Everyone’s different, whether as parents or children, and I just have my opinion based on my experience weighed against those I know—who generally won’t speak openly or refuse to or just plain disagree or whatever (I’ve met all kinds.)  And I don’t think the BIRTH parents of such children are very rare, but those who ADOPT them are.  They aren’t special heroic people, either.  Don’t think so, since they’re just like you and me.  I’ve met many of them, and they’re as ordinary as sedans in a crowded parking lot.  If they’re happy, good for them.  Most of the time, so was I.  But I know some people who are happy in the most maddening situations, such as the prison in which I work, so that’s probably as much an internal as external thing in people’s makeup.

Oh, and just btw, pretty much the main reason infants born with Down syndrome survive into adulthood is by thwarting the Will Of God<tm> in the form of a shunt that equalizes CSF pressure. It’s been standard for decades.

That’s hydrocephaly, not DS.

My brother has Down Syndrome.  Physically, it affected him very slightly.  He has stubby fingers, his head is smaller, his eyes slant a bit more than mine.  But he’s healthy as a horse and has never needed any kind of surgery.  Others aren’t nearly so lucky as heart and gastrointestinal problems are common.

However, he is mildly retarded, and I’m using “mild” in the clinical sense.  He cannot live independently, and thanks to his Oral Motor Apraxia, he doesn’t talk.  He understands everything perfectly well, and is even smart enough to realize that he’s not as smart as most people, but he’s about as retarded as someone with DS can be.

There is no prenatal test that will let you know how intelligent your child will be.  You roll the dice anytime, but it’s a hard roll with DS.  You *will* have some mental retardation.  And that means you will have to fight for his/her rights and be his/her advocate.

Like I said, I’d like to think most people are up to the task, and decent education and transparency about DS would help lower abortion rates, but no one should be forced to take it on.

Parents of kids with disabilities who are nonetheless happy with their lives and their children are not rare heroes. They’re average people, and they’re more common than you seem to think.

God yes.  I hate people who come up to us and act like we’re saints b/c we treat my brother like he’s a member of our family.  He’s my brother.  I love him.  It’s not extraordinary and I’m not a wonderful human for actually liking a member of my family.

LaBarbera’s got it all wrong. God isn’t anti-choice. She told me just the other day that She is adamantly pro-choice, partly because of how hard She had it when She was pregnant with the Universe, and partly because She aborted three Universes before She became pregnant with this one, for various reasons. One had a Planck constant too law to be compatible with the creation of stable matter. Another time, She didn’t have enough energy to produce a Big Bang and didn’t want to have a Universe unless She could provide it with all the space and time it deserved. The third time, She just didn’t want to have a Universe right then. If She had had any of those three Universes, She would never have gotten pregnant with this one—we owe the existence of everything we know to God’s freedom of choice! Thus, to oppose abortion rights is one of the gravest blasphemies, for in so doing, you imply that God’s decisions in when and how She created the Universe were wrong.

Why no, Mr. LaBarbera, I can’t prove any of that. Can you prove yours?

I love this quote. May I repost it at my blog, Karalora?

You absolutely may.

Thanks!