for Down's. At my age at delivery (I'll be 31 then), the strict odds according to my OB/GYN is 1 in 700. Not bad, but not great.

One of my classmates got a false positive, had an amino, and are now in the all clear for their baby due in Sept.

If all the tests come back positive for us, my husband and I agreed at the beginning that we would abort and then focus on adoption.

I don't want a perfect child; I don't want a designer child. We're not even finding out the sex (which is very rare these days) because as long as we have a healthy baby, who the hell cares. (This also helps avoiding the god-awful pink and blue crap everyone gets once they disclose the baby's sex.)

I feel for these parents. I didn't get from the NYT article that they wanted playmates for their children, as much as they wanted acceptance and funding. I would want to know what I can do to help, besides pressuring/forcing me to have a down's child.

Ultimately, my decision not to have a down's child does not detract from how special their children are and how society should support their care. At least it doesn't have to, and by suggesting otherwise is the wrong way to draw attention to their needs.

I don't think the parents of DS children are responsible for providing the gap in, presumably, OB/GYN's knowledge about DS. Why not refer patients who test positive to Pediatricians with knowledge about DS? Wouldn't they be able to speak about the range of quality of life?

I'm struggling with the idea of giving referrals out in doctor's offices that are to non-medical persons. I'm guessing that doctor's aren't going to refer patients to parents who hate having a DS child. I have no problem with parents learning about DS and the range of their abilities, but I do have a problem with only giving out pro-DS referrals. How is this any different than a doctor giving out pro-life referrals?

Here's what I think parents would need: medical information on DS and continued support networks (emotional, financial) throughout the child's life. The DS parents in the Times' article complain about too few of the latter. So why concentrate on the former? Again, the comparison to the pro-life camp is too similar for me. They care about destigmatizing DS, but once the children are born, there openly acknowledge there are too few resources for them. To advocate for more children to be born into a society with too few resources for those children is, in my opinion, not fair. Consequently, I don't think these parents' views have any place inside a doctor's office.

all self-selected participants.

all but one of the studies used undergraduate students getting course credit for participating.

less than 300 actual employees.

self-reported sexual harassment.

survey data.

etc. etc.

I really appreciate the author's attempt to re-theorize sexual harassment as "gender harassment," but this sample is way too limited and not generalizable at all. And the conclusion says that further studies could see if the author's findings are generalizable to other populations and cultures, which presumes, incorrectly, that this study's findings are generalizable to its current population and cultures.

To really examine sexual harassment, I don't think undergraduates getting course credit is the best population to approach. The author also fails to include her survey schedule (a copy of her survey). The way questions are asked on surveys greatly affect the way in which respondents answer questions. Without access to the basic tools with which this study got its results and the extremely limited sample, I'm not convinced the author has demonstrated what she thinks she has.

Because he already kind of has two--LW's twins. (By my math, they're not yet full grown and can still use a lot of parenting.) What's wrong with focusing his energy on those children that are already here? I know, they're *not really* his--he wants his own brand new baby.

I'll echo the other posters' comments about the improbability of making him raise the kid. What is she going to do when it cries, ignore it? Cary's advice would certainly rule out breastfeeding as well.

Even in the most ideal scenario and hubby does raise the kid himself, who do you think he's going to be asking questions to every other second? (Do you think the kid has a fever? How do you fold this diaper? What does it mean when it cries like that? When does it need its shots?) My husband asks me where his clothes are, whether or not the dishes in the dishwasher are dirty, etc instead of just trying to figure it out for himself. How is hubby going to handle figuring it out for himself? I'm guessing asking wifey who has two kids already and has done this before, all the while the kid is crying, wet, sick, etc. Is she really going to let him figure it out for himself, or is she going to take over because the kid is waiting at best, suffering at worst? You can't just stand by while an innocent child of yours waits/cries/etc. because you want to ensure hubby is raising the kid and not you.

LW told hubby beforehand that kids weren't a guarantee. Now hubby has changed his mind. That's unfortunate, but that's life. Get him to adopt a kid on his own (is that even possible?).

If LW doesn't want a kid, LW shouldn't have one. What's great about your relationship is that your hubby helped you through something, but that doesn't mean you owe him a child. Another human being isn't something to give to someone else.

LW--get the abortion as planned.

The last two posters display massive ignorance. There is no more welfare (see Bill Clinton's 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act).