If people are armed with knowledge they might make decisions! We can't let that happen!

Definitely a slippery slope. I agree with the parent who said "It isn't about abortion politics or religion, it's a pure ethical question." I also agree that aborting a child because it does not meet one's expectations or specifications--in this case, because it has down's syndrome--borders on eugenics. I myself have some serious physical disabilities that today would have gotten me aborted. I've had some difficulties in my life, but I'm glad I'm here and sorry that people like me will be henceforth phased out. It's somewhat disturbing to think that if any of my friends found out that their unborn child was going to turn out like me, that'd be the end of him! What must they really think of me?

Even in just the short time that these various methods of sex control have been available, they have had dramatic effects on sex ratios in many parts of the world. Generally, any variation in the sex ratio exceeding 106 boys born per 100 girls born can be assumed to be evidence of sex control. Here are just a few examples of skewed sex ratios around the world today (most recent figures provided). The sex ratio in Venezuela is 107.5, in Yugoslavia 108.6, in Egypt 108.7, in Hong Kong 109.7, in South Korea 110, in Pakistan 110.9, in Delhi, India 117, in China 117, in Cuba 118, in the Caucuses nations of Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia, the sex ratio has reached as high as 120. While the sex ratio in the United States has remained stable at 104.8, certain American ethnic groups have seen a statistically significant rise in their sex ratios. In 1984, the sex ratio for Chinese Americans was 104.6 and for Japanese Americans 102.6; in 2000, these ratios had risen respectively to 107.7 and 106.4.5

Imbalances in the sex ratio are certainly not evenly spread across every region of the globe. However, one cannot but be impressed by the fact that distortions in the sex ratio afflict developed as well as underdeveloped nations, Hindu and Moslem populations as well as Christian populations, Western as well as non-Western nations, wealthy and educated regions as well as those that are less so. One can only expect in the future that technologies of sex control will be further refined and that new and cheaper technologies will emerge on the market. The desire to use these technologies will likely grow too, in our country just as in others.6 One can thus also reasonably surmise a continuation and expansion of substantial distortions in the sex-ratio.

Think of the effect all of those polio vaccinations had on the people who had the disease before a vaccine was available. Didn't providing the vaccination reduce the number of cases, and probably reduce the amount of energy put into treating the disabling results of polio?

Seriously, mumanity has been working very hard to improve the quality of life of all human beings for many years. I understand that people whose lives are effected Down's syndrom might want the best care for those afflicted by it, but that isn't a good reason to encourage Down's babies. Genetic diversity is good, but how far are we willing to go with this? Dwarfism is, as far as I know, not a disability that takes away the ability to lead a full life. I don't want to live in a society where everybody is beautiful and tall and thin and intelligent and fits some arbitrary standard of "perfection". At the same time, I have no problem with curing/preventing diseases or reducing the rate of life-threatening genetic abnormalities.

Of course people who have children with Down Syndrome love their children and want the best quality of life for them, but although some, maybe many, children born with Down Sydrome are lovable and well adjusted, a good number have additional handicaps other than mental subnormality, such as epilepsy, and heart problems,not to mention behavioral problems and mental illness which make the life of their parents a nightmare--so it is not a one sided argument.

The idea that people should not terminate Down Syndrome pregnancies because they may be depriving other children who are about to be born with Down Syndrome of playmates is really, really absurd.

The parents of mostly-healthy, well-adjusted Down Syndrome kids add an important perspective to the debate. But theirs is not and should not be given any extra weight.

Not every Down Syndrome kid is like Corky from Life Goes On. Some have vision, hearing and heart problems. Weak bones, gastrointestinal problems and frequent infections. And retardation that can vary from mild to severe. Some work, but many cannot live on their own.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000997.htm

You can wind up with a kid with some mild challenges that don't prohibit a happy, well-rounded life. Or you can wind up with a chronically ill, chronically in pain, severely retarded child. Odds are, your child won't be in the "severe" category, but it's still something to consider.

And if your child has only mild challenges, are you as a parent prepared for the additional emotional, physical and financial costs of a challenged-child? Even at the expense of your other children? Parents need to come to these decisions with complete information from their doctors and other experienced sources.

Is the kind of parent who would immediately and seriously consider aborting a child that is going to have some kind of complications the sort of parent you'd want raising a child with major complications?

There are some parents who are fit, capable, and equipped (both financially, physically, and emotionally) to raise children with Downs syndrome. Not every parent is. Is it better to advocate that the parents who can't hack it bring a child into a world that cannot properly care for it, or to advocate that only the parents who are willing to do so actually will?

I have a sibling with mental retardation and some physical limitations. Many of her former classmates and now fellow residents (since her 30s she is in a wonderful group home near where we grew up) have Downs. Yes, those parents were not given the choice whether to abort or go through with their pregnancies. In my sister's case, her issues are caused by birth injury, so even now there would be no pre-diagnosis possible. Many of the parents of these adults - like my sister, now in their 40s and many whom I've known since I can remember - bucked the conventions of the day and kept their children at home rather than sending them to the state hospital.

That said, I saw what my parents went through in raising a special child. My mother fought the California State Legislature to make sure my sister's schools had the same level of funding as "normal" schools. My parents worked tirelessly for over 30 years to first fund and then run the home where she now resides. My "normal" sisters and I held our heads high to the teasing of our classmates, and came out better people for it. I know what a particular burden it was to raise my sister, and to continue to ensure that she is safe and happy. Lucky for my parents, who worry, she has four sisters who will continue to look after her when our parents are gone.

However, if I were given the choice, early in pregnancy, to avoid my parents' fate, I would do so. Yes, no pregnancy is guaranteed. But given the choice, I do not doubt what I would do. Purely physical limitations/differences, such as deafness, are another matter. But frankly - and selfishly - I feel like me and my family have given enough.