Down Syndrome; A Modern Day Death Sentence

I know I have posted quite a few times on this subject. But It is a subject very near and dear to my heart. I feel a well up of out rage when I read articles like this. I guess it's not the article per se, But the view some people have of these children. OUR children. these people have obviously never seen the value that every person brings. Never love a child with a disability, Never felt love from a child with a disability, Never given birth to a child with a disability, and loved them more, for the things they will have to help them overcome.Do these people, have the children that hate our children, and learn that destroying "some lives" you know the ones that are not worth anything, is okay given the right circumstances.
My problem with this, we know from day 1, who are children with DS are, and can see a majority of what their struggles will be. What about those children who's disabilities are birth related. Or, who's autism will not show until a little later. What about one who's disability is an addictive personality, and becomes a drug addict. Or the one's who are abused as a child, and becomes the abuser. Will we make sure that we find an easy noninvasive test for those things? That way everyone will have an equal opportunity to be extinguished.
Thank you to all of you who willingly and joyfully bring these children into the world. Thank you to all of those who love 4 of 5's because of, or in spite of her disabilities. You will never know what that means to us.

I found this article in the Deseret News on Sunday FEb. 15th, then saw it on a friends blog, and it reminded me that I wanted to post it.

Claire will never read these words. But at least she is alive and brings joy to her many friends and family members. You see, Claire is a survivor. She survived one of the most ruthlessly effective extermination programs in modern times.
Claire has Down syndrome.
Most of her Down syndrome brothers and sisters never got to be born. In the United States, more than 90 percent of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted. (In some other countries this number reaches 95 percent.) But apparently this isn't enough for those who would eradicate these defective persons. The problem is that the current methods for diagnosing the Down defect are ultrasound, biochemical exams or amniocentesis. But amniocentesis is expensive, invasive and potentially harmful to mothers and ultrasound may not be accurate.
Not to worry, Lenetix, a diagnostic technology company, has developed a new maternal blood test for the detection of Down syndrome and other chromosomal abnormalities. With no irony, Lenetix CEO Leonard H. Kellner tells us "we take deep pride in the technology we have developed because it has the potential to impact the lives of millions of women and their unborn children." Lenetix medical director, Steve Brown, M.D., tells us that "pregnant women and their physicians are clamoring for an improved, noninvasive prenatal test because they fear the risks of amniocentesis."



Sounds wonderful, like describing a new life-saving wonder drug or technology. But the sad, stark fact, well-known to anyone in this field, is that virtually every diagnosis of Down syndrome lends to the abortion of that unborn child. This is eugenics with a vengeance.
While the folks at Lenetix may simply be doing their best to advance science, other voices are more sinister when it comes to aborting children with Down syndrome.
"Like many," notes Libertarian commentator Nicholas Provenzo, "I am troubled by the implications of . . . Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome." This is necessary, Provenzo informs us, "because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive."
Dr. Rahul K. Parikh, writing in Salon.com, takes a slightly more compassionate approach. While "greatly" admiring Palin's decision to "knowingly" give birth to a child with Down syndrome, it is critical that her decision not be imposed on other women. Parikh comes down hard on "rabid anti-choice activists who have called [aborting Down syndrome children] eugenics via medicine." Yet it is hard to see how this isn't "eugenics via medicine."

George Will defines "the pernicious quest for a disability-free society" as "respectable eugenics."
We are now quickly sliding down the slippery slope. What about people who are only "marginally productive" after they are born or when they get old? Are their lives worth preserving? And what does "marginally productive" mean anyway? In the literature "marginally productive" very often edges into "merely inconvenient."
In case you think these are red herring questions, hear Princeton professor Peter Singer. "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all. That doesn't mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do." Not because there is anything inherently wrong with killing an infant but because "to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents."
The ease with which we disregard the idea of life in its beginning and how we increasingly diminish restraints on voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide as life winds down, illuminates how far we have fallen from our founder's declaration that we are endowed by our Creator with the unalienable right of life.