At 3:50pm on MSNBC News Live, anchor Contessa Brewer interviewed writer for the Washington Post's 'On Faith' blog, Sally Quinn, on the role of social issues in the presidential campaign and cited recent poll numbers on abortion: " On abortion, the latest New York Times/CBS poll shows 37% of voters say abortions should be generally available, 42% want the procedure available but with stricter limits than we have now. 19% say they should not be permitted at all...What do you make of those numbers?" Quinn responded: "Well, I think the majority of people in this country believe that abortion should be legal at some point. And 90% of people, for instance, who have Down's Syndrome babies choose to terminate their pregnancies. So I think that people generally feel that a woman should have a choice." Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome five months ago.
Quinn went on to suggest Palin and John McCain were hypocritical for being opposed to abortion and in favor of the death penalty and even claimed that Palin would be in favor of executing abortion doctors and women who have abortions: "Both McCain and Palin are in favor of the death penalty. In fact, Sarah Palin has said, 'anybody who murders a child I will sign the death penalty for that person.' So how can you then say life begins at conception, abortion is murder, 'I'm in favor of the death penalty,' and not be in favor of the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions or mothers who allow abortions to be performed?" However, Quinn did not see any hypocrisy in Joe Biden’s contradiction of being personally opposed to abortion, but not publicly: "Joe -- Joe Biden is Catholic, believes that life begins at conception, but does not believe that imposing his religious views on others."
Quinn has attacked Palin for her decision to be McCain’s running mate while being a mother of five. During a September 3 appearance on the CBS Early Show, Quinn suggested that Palin should "rethink her priorities."
Here is the full transcript of the segment:
3:50PM SEGMENT:
CONTESSA BREWER: With the economy stealing center stage in the election, that means social issues like abortion and capital punishment are taking a back seat. Some even wonder if these moral issues should be as relevant as the economy. On abortion, the latest New York Times/CBS poll shows 37% of voters say abortions should be generally available, 42% want the procedure available but with stricter limits than we have now. 19% say they should not be permitted at all. And the Washington Post's Sally Quinn writes about the abortion issue in On Faith. Sally, thanks so much for joining us.
QUINN: Good to be here.
BREWER: What do you make of those numbers?
SALLY QUINN: Well, I think the majority of people in this country believe that abortion should be legal at some point. And 90% of people, for instance, who have Down's Syndrome babies choose to terminate their pregnancies. So I think that people generally feel that a woman should have a choice. But, you know, it is a moral issue, and it's a moral issue for both sides because there is no clarity. And I -- I don't know anybody who's pro-abortion. I've never met anybody who says abortion is a great thing. I think everybody would love to avoid it. But I think-
BREWER: In fact, you hear both sides saying they want to reduce the number of abortions.
QUINN: That's right. And I think now that -- you know, with the medical science, the viability of a fetus gets younger and younger and younger, even though quality of life is never very great for a very early fetus. But I think that the difference between the two candidates is, for instance, Joe -- Joe Biden is Catholic, believes that life begins at conception, but does not believe that imposing his religious views on others. Obama believes -- does not believe that life begins at conception but doesn't know exactly when it begins, which is most -- Sarah Palin and John McCain both believe that life begins at conception, and they are both in favor of the death penalty. And John McCain used to be against it. He was against overturning Roe vs. Wade in 2000-
BREWER: Let's talk about that-
QUINN: -changed his mind and now is in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Sarah Palin has been very consistent. John McCain did say that he believed it was okay in the case of rape or incest, which I don't understand because if you believe it's murder, then what difference does it make how the child was conceived? Does that mean you can murder a 2-year-old because that child was conceived from rape or incest?
BREWER: In fact, there are very different issues about this that Cindy McCain has been challenged on because she has been asked in interviews lately whether she supports Sarah Palin's view on abortion, which is no abortion ever. Cindy McCain has said, I disagree with that. In fact, I support abortion in cases of rape or incest. Do you think it matters -- I mean it matters electorally to those -- to voters that would vote Republican?
QUINN: That doesn't make any sense because if you believe that life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. Then, of course, the subject of the death penalty comes up. Both McCain and Palin are in favor of the death penalty. In fact, Sarah Palin has said, 'anybody who murders a child I will sign the death penalty for that person.' So how can you then say life begins at conception, abortion is murder, 'I'm in favor of the death penalty,' and not be in favor of the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions or mothers who allow abortions to be performed?
BREWER: And yet politically speaking there has been and we've seen it in the polls that Sarah Palin has attracted a lot of women and a lot of women's interest in the John McCain ticket despite there maybe differences on the abortion issue. And I say women meaning those that were former Hillary Clinton supporters who are pro-choice but have been attracted because Sarah Palin is on the ticket.
QUINN: Well, they want to attract those women, obviously. There are 18 million of them. And I think a lot of those women aren't absolutely sure where Sarah Palin stands on this issue. And I think that if you noticed at the Republican convention there was barely a mention of choice. And I think that they are deliberately playing that down because they know that that could be a real loser for a lot of these pro-Hillary Clinton people. So that the issue that they care most about, which is life and life begins at conception, and anti-abortion, they are really playing down because they know if they don't, they're going to lose an awful lot of women voters.
BREWER: Sally Quinn, thank you so much. We appreciate it.
QUINN: Thanks.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Actually there was allot of discussion of "Choice"
September 18, 2008 - 17:37 ET by exLibI think Quinn used the wrong term and should have been hammered for it.
The RNC had plenty of discussion of choice; Where to go to school, what to do with more of your own money are just a few example of where the Republicans come down as pro-choice.
Let's face it, that was a softball interview, any self-respecting interviewer would have pushed her on the 90% figure, ridiculous.
But just horrible assumptions, I think the vast, vast majority of people are NOT in favor of Partial birth abortions and more would be if there was EVER any information allowed into the mainstream about it.
Think of all the blood and gore we see all the time on TV and yet we aren't allowed to see what a PBA is all about?
The 90% figure is true.
September 18, 2008 - 18:17 ET by motherbeltThe 90% figure is true. It has been reported in several places; here's one, the NY Times
LifesiteNews has an article about doctors in Canada worrying that Sarah Palin's choice may discourage women from aborting their babies with Down syndrome.
Umm...
September 18, 2008 - 18:39 ET by Indiana JoeSorry, MB, but I can't believe that's true just because it's in the NYT, or been reported "several places." I just don't see how you could get an accurate figure on that. Even if Down's births are down versus the past, that could be due to better understanding about prevention and such.
And, as I point out in another post, that implies that Down's births would be 900% higher without abortion. The numbers just don't seem to wash.
I wasn't even going to look at the article, but I did, and checked the link on the "90%" figure. It's a report on 20 papers over 18 years (1980-1998), and each paper only had to have 5 cases of any of 5 birth defects. Hardly sounds authoritative to me. Sounds more like a convenient "factoid."
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I will just give you one
September 18, 2008 - 19:41 ET by motherbeltI will just give you one more link, from the National Center of Biotechnology Information.
It says that 92% of the women whose babies were determined to have Down syndrome opted for abortion, in their study.
And saying there would be 9 times the number of babies being born with Down's sounds like a ridiculous number, but doesn't that depend on what the base number is? For instance, if it's from 100 multiplied to 900, yes, that's a lot...but if it's 5 to 45, not so much.
And in a country of 300 million, how many would it have to be, to be obvious?
At any rate, I don't think you can deny that, because of the advance knowledge factor, babies are being aborted that wouldn't have been before.
MB, that's the same study I linked to... from the NYT article.
September 18, 2008 - 20:51 ET by Indiana JoeAnd no, the 9 times isn't ridiculous. It follows from the "90%" abortion rate, as in:
If you abort 90 out of 100 Down's pregnancies (90%), then NOT aborting them would result in 100 Down's births instead of 10.
Now, statistically speaking, that's a 9 times increase (900%), although numerically, it would be "a factor of 10" (1000%). If the point of this "fact" is that abortion keeps us from being awash in Down's infants, I'm not buying. At any rate, it's irrelevant to the morals of abortion, IMO.
I never expressed doubt that there are people who abort when they get a diagnosis of Down's. I don't believe it's a good reason, but it happens. My quibble is with the number. For the reasons I outlined, I think it's shaky at best, and BS at worst. For one thing, the sample is just way too small to draw any such conclusion. Just more dishonest "fact-slinging" by the best liars on the planet.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
The NYTimes may be
September 18, 2008 - 20:17 ET by stratmanThe NYTimes may be manipulating fact to fit their desired results. (Shocking... not)
The study cited for the 90% abortion rate for pre-natal diagnosis of Down's Syndrome was published out of England. It is unknown if the data was culled from Europe or the US.
The research was funded by a European agency, further making the source of the data European and not American.
The full title of the article is "Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review. European Concerted Action: DADA (Decision-making After the Diagnosis of a fetal Abnormality)." This does not look to be derived from American-based statistics/data.
The data was obtained by literature review only. That means something had to be reported first, which usually equates to NOT ALL the numbers of prenatal diagnosed Down's Syndrome and the associated decision on maintaining the pregnancy were known. The skew of this data, at face value, is horrendous.
A more useful source of data would be a retrospective analysis using Registry data, ie, all pregnancies documented in a country. At least 1000 Down's syndrome pregnancies (more is better) using appropriate statistical methods of inclusion should be the bare minimum, not a reliance on biased literature review.
Rates of abortion following Down's diagnosis in Europe may very significantly from that in the USA. One should never generalize rates between countries as customs, morals, etc may vary significantly. Funny how the NYT's didn't quote the percent of abortions for this situation in Ireland and Monaco (few) - maybe because it wouldn't further their agenda?
Without reading the entire article, one has no way to ascertain if the research and conclusion are valid and useful. This has the odor of the NYT's pushing a number and concept that fits their paradigm first, reality be damned.
RRAM Tough!
Excellent info strat.
September 18, 2008 - 20:29 ET by Clear thinkerExcellent info strat. Thanks!
Hate Rush Limbaugh Week - Again
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
You forgot, "as usual."
September 18, 2008 - 20:55 ET by Indiana Joe"This has the odor of the NYT's pushing a number and concept that fits their paradigm first, reality be damned."
My thoughts exactly, strat. I do think they specify in the (very) short paper at the link that the "92%" is for Down's, but it seems to be a very small sample, over a very long time. And I missed that it was from Europe! Got too hung up looking at the numbers.
I can't consider this at all "comprehensive," let alone "representative." And, c'mon...
It's Europe! ;^)
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
Further Google
September 18, 2008 - 22:22 ET by stratmanFurther Google research shows that England does have a Registry which documents number of pregnancies with prenatal diagnosis of Down's Syndrome and that there are 90+% terminations (abortions). The data looks solid for England. For example, according to this article:
"The National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register holds data on 10651 cases of prenatally or postnatally diagnosed Down's syndrome occurring in England and Wales from 1 January 1989 to 31 December 1997"
"From 1989 to 1997, 92% of cases diagnosed prenatally and with known outcome were terminated, 1.9% were miscarried, 1.5% were recorded as a stillbirth or neonatal death, and nearly 5% were live births surviving to discharge from hospital."
Intersestingly, or sadly as it is, another article's conclusion concerning live births of DS babies states:
Survivors?? A bizarre way of naming these children.
Importantly, the data is not solid for the USA without actual data about US DS pregnancies. I have not found comparable and/or valid data collated for the USA.
The NYT's and Quinn are disingenuous in throwing around unverified data... unless they think they are in England.
Their bastardization of science for personal and political gain is asinine and dangerous.
OK, you guys win.
September 18, 2008 - 22:41 ET by motherbeltOK, you guys win.
I will accept your evidence that the number is inflated.
I am not saying the number
September 18, 2008 - 23:29 ET by stratmanI am not saying the number is inflated MB.
It appears the Brits had a national Registry that recorded data appropriately and in valid enough numbers.
What I don't accept is that 90+% of DS pregnancies end in abortion in the USA.
I have yet to see the data.
Neither has Sally Quinn. She regurgitated British numbers which may or may not represent USA numbers.
Sally Quinn is a partisan dilletant, and an arrogant and idiotic one at that.
RRAM Tough!
Well, Indiana said it
September 19, 2008 - 06:10 ET by motherbeltWell, Indiana said it was. And after doing more searching, I've come to the conclusion that he was correct. That's what I meant.
I wasn't being snotty...I was admitting that the numbers I found were probably not accurate. That's why I said "I accept the fact"....instead of "OK, you win," which would have sounded like "I'm not going to argue with you any more."
Opps!
September 19, 2008 - 16:56 ET by stratmanI was trying to support you, not admonish you.
My wires were crossed on this conversation. Doh!
Mea culpa, MB.
You are right - it is not 90%
September 18, 2008 - 21:49 ET by wdhorningStatistics show that the vast majority do not favor abortion for themselves under any circumstances other than rape or incest. So 90% is really implausible, even for babies with defects.
"Quinn went on to suggest
September 18, 2008 - 17:38 ET by DoktorFranken"Quinn went on to suggest Palin and John McCain were hypocritical for being opposed to abortion and in favor of the death penalty . . ."
Unborn children are guiltless. People who have made a decision to commit a crime worthy of a death penalty are not.
Quinn has gone over the deep end - game over. "Truly gone fishing."
the death penalty is for
September 18, 2008 - 18:38 ET by TruthMongerthe death penalty is for those who are guilty
abortion is for those who are innocent
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
On the money
September 18, 2008 - 18:45 ET by MES41067I like the way you put that.
Abortion vs Death Penalty
September 18, 2008 - 17:40 ET by exLibI have to hear One person clairfy the position.
It's all about innocence and being able to defend yourself.
Babies are innocent and can't defend themselves and depend on the parents, especially the mother to fight for them. The fact that a mother could abort just shows you that they somehow either don't have the maternal instinct or more likely have supressed it.
Those who deserve the death penalty are there because they have failed to defend themselves in a court of law, have preyed upon the defenseless and more live could be saved if they were not around.
exlib ---agreed
September 18, 2008 - 17:51 ET by misterbillThe innocents --it's OK to kill them---where are all the people(?) who hang out outside the prisons to protest executions?? What crime has the unborn committed to be sentenced to death??
If you ask me to give up the death sentence to stop abortions--I will agree even though they are different issues.
Notice the made up 90% stat from nowhere.
September 18, 2008 - 17:41 ET by c5thenThat is the tactic of the abortionists. Make up big numbers so the self-conscious and non confident will think it's OK to follow the herd.
The argument for abortion is morally bankrupt and most of the country knows it. Even the liberal tilted CBS/NYT poll that they cited has 19% wanting a ban and 42% with stricter limits, so 61% of the country wants to restrict abortion to some extent. The abortionists are clearly in the minority.
Killing an innocent baby is completely different then someone committing a crime that the legislature has deemed deserves the death penalty because of the extreme risk to society that the perpetrator poses.
P.S. Isn't this the same Sally Quinn who is basically a gossip columnist? Since when did she become a political analyst?
P.P.S Overturning Roe v Wade is unnecessary. All that is required is for Congress to pass a bill, and the President sign it, that states that "life begins at conception and at that moment all the rights and privileges of citizenship are vested" . At that point, Roe v Wade becomes moot.
Been thinkin it over---
September 18, 2008 - 17:47 ET by misterbillDo think it is something in the parents' genes. Therefore--if they are having a Downs Syndrome child-- we should abort the parents so it does not happen again.
Punish the perpetrators not the victims.
Yeah, that would be
September 18, 2008 - 18:13 ET by Indiana JoeYeah, that would be something like an 83rd-trimester abortion for a 20 year-old, right, misterbill?
(h/t to "South Park")
;^)
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
I'm not good at math---
September 18, 2008 - 19:54 ET by misterbillI'm not good at math---but 83rd works for me.
Alternative --vasectomy on demand.
Pope Sally I
September 18, 2008 - 17:54 ET by Chris Norman"...Joe Biden is Catholic, believes that life begins at conception, but does not believe that imposing his religious views on others."
Looking to Sally Quinn for answers to moral/religious/political dilemma questions? Yikes...
McNotObama '08
criminalizing murder is a
September 18, 2008 - 18:39 ET by TruthMongercriminalizing murder is a "religious view?!?"
better get it off the state books then
let the convicts out
Journalism is the opium of the liberals
Oh, where to begin?
September 18, 2008 - 18:05 ET by Indiana JoeFirst of all, why does this woman write a column called "On Faith?" Does it mean we're supposed to accept her drivel "on faith?" Because she sure doesn't seem to have a lot of "spiritual" leanings.
How can she possibly know that "90% of people, for instance, who have Down's Syndrome babies choose to terminate their pregnancies?" How do you get those figures? "There's evidence of Down's... will you abort... or not?" And does that mean that there would be 900% more Down's babies if it weren't for abortion? Yeah, according to her... "on faith."
"So how can you then say life begins at conception, abortion is murder, 'I'm in favor of the death penalty,' and not be in favor of the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions or mothers who allow abortions to be performed?" Umm... because abortion is legal, maybe? My turn. How can you say life doesn't begin at conception, yet prosecute the murder of a pregnant woman with a charge of two homicides? Is it a human or is it a tumor? How do you "murder" a cluster of cells? Do we have to lock up every biologist in the country? Well? Waiting....
Joe Biden is not a good, practicing Catholic. I'm reminded of something Florence King liked to tell her "Catholic" friends who "didn't agree" with the Vatican on various issues: "Congratulations, you're Prostestant."
"I don't know anybody who's pro-abortion. I've never met anybody who says abortion is a great thing." You've never heard anyone that claimed that abortion was the single most important "woman's right" there is? Wow, I guess you just haven't been listening too well, huh? And what about those "90%" of Down's parents? Wouldn't you call them "pro-abortion?" The pro-abortion people like to call themselves "pro-choice." The anti-abortion people call themselves "pro-life." It could just as easily be "anti-life," or "anti-abortion," or "pro-death," or whatever. What's in a name? It still smells the same.
If these lame points are the best she can do, how did she get a "commentator" gig? And where can I get one? I'm tired of actually working for a living.
"... smells like... victory." - Robert Duvall
"Joe Biden is Catholic,
September 18, 2008 - 18:27 ET by Jerry"Joe Biden is Catholic, believes that life begins at conception, but does not believe that imposing his religious views on others."
Joe Biden on terrorism:
"I believe that terrorists who chop off innocent peoples heads are wrong to do that, but I wouldn't dare impose my beliefs on them if they think it is ok... who am I to pass judgement?"
When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).
Jerry... Did Biden really
September 18, 2008 - 19:25 ET by Clear thinkerJerry...
Did Biden really say that?
Hate Rush Limbaugh Week - Again
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
So children who are born
September 18, 2008 - 18:26 ET by zfSo children who are born different and with "disabilities" are better off dead then? Ah, those liberals and their tolerance for diversity...eh? Abortion and eugenics, forever linked.
According to liberals, the
September 18, 2008 - 18:36 ET by Clear thinkerAccording to liberals, the answer is YES!
Sarah Palin Should Have Aborted
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
She's just a hair's breath
September 18, 2008 - 18:51 ET by wiwfShe's just a hair's breath away from saying eugenics is okay...
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Actually, that's exactly
September 18, 2008 - 19:22 ET by lotrActually, that's exactly what she is preaching, even if she didn't call it by its ugly name.
If it is true that 90% of Down's Syndrome babies are killed in utero, then it is a sad day for our country. May God have mercy on us.
The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' -- Matt. 25:40
Abortion and Death Penalty
September 18, 2008 - 18:52 ET by Dr_LibertyWell if a fetus is ever convicted of a series of gruesome pre-meditated murders, I guess I would be in favor of the death penalty for that fetus.
Differentiating death penalty and abortion isn't brain surgery lady. It takes a basic understanding of guilt and innocence.
<insert witty signature here>
Media and Hitler agree, Kill a special baby
September 18, 2008 - 19:24 ET by Daniel BakerDoes everyone thinkthe gov should pay for these babies health care or should it be up to the family?
Protect Traditional Marriage California Get Out the Vote
Traditional Marriage is not "Divisive" President Obama
Straight-Jacket Sally!
September 18, 2008 - 19:57 ET by RMRSpeaking of PDS? If McCain wins, this woman will need some serious therapy.
hacks
September 18, 2008 - 20:31 ET by regimeofterrorthese libs in the press are really shameless in their smearing and their bias about who they are and how out of the mainstream they are. they really are as dishonest as any current profession
Saddam Hussein and terrorism. The rest of the story...
http://www.regimeoft...
Why is killing always the answer?
September 18, 2008 - 21:48 ET by caiobabeI don't believe those stats. There can't be that many people that have used their all protected and legal "choice" to kill. No matter how you look at it, people making this decision for reasons such as an abnormality like Downs or from an inconvenience as most cases are, the "choice" is a choice that results in a death.
14 years ago my wife had a required test to prescreen for Down's because she fell into the category of possibly having a Down's syndrome baby. My wife was over 30 years old and our HMO recommended this test. Well, we get a phone call to come in for a consultation due to abnormal test results. The first thing the nurse tells us is that we have a 90% chance of having a child with DS and we should comnsider abortion. My wife and I would have nothing to do with it or with that nurse who pushed an abortion agenda first instead of one of hope or coping with a future situation.
Later, I made a complaint concerning their consultation practices but nevertheless, my daughter Rachel was born and WITHOUT any syndrome. She was just fine but we would have accepted her in any condition. She was ours.
I'm not any ultra religious or Bible thumper but I certainly DO NOT want to stand in front of God one day and answer as to why I chose death for a human creation that HE placed a Soul into.
I'm sure all life has a purpose.
Hmmmm
September 18, 2008 - 22:19 ET by doug1950So much for their "tests" huh? Makes me wonder how many others whose child would have been perfectly normal have been aborted because of a faulty testing or an overzealous medical counselor.
On another note; she says Biden doesn't push his religious views but so far neither has Sarah Palin. She is not the one making a big production out of her faith, the left has been the ones doing that.
Accuracy of prenatal
September 18, 2008 - 23:20 ET by stratmanAccuracy of prenatal testing for Down's Syndrome (DS) is a good question and requires a somewhat lengthy answer best done in a meeting and not in this thread. The following is a condensed and simplified discussion. It does not replace a meeting with your physician.
The first step to diagnosing of DS is to get good dates on the pregnancy, as all the screening blood tests, the Triple Test, result requires good dating to have reasonable validity. Ultrasound is very useful for dating as well as potential (early) substantiation of DS based on certain anatomical findings.
The Triple Test, and all the tests used to diagnose DS are not mandatory as far as I know since my use of them in the 1990's. The American College of Gynecology and the American Academy of Family Practice have not recommended mandatory testing for some time. In fact, both of these groups recommend discussing these tests and potential results and their ramifications, and then let the patient decide if they desire the tests at all.
The Triple Test, done at 15-18 weeks gestation, can have a 5% false positive result, meaning the 5 out of 100 pregnancies positive for DS on the Triple Test do NOT have DS. This is the reason that further testing, such as amniocentesis, is recommended following Triple Test suggestive of DS. (Triple Test is not an exclusive Positive or Negative thing - results are a number that gives a risk stratification more or less likely to be DS, and need to be interpretated based on patient history and other testing)
It should be noted that the Triple Test has false negatives too, such that a "normal" Triple Test does not absolutely rule out a DS baby. That is why doctors must factor in the age of the patient (Older the mother at pregnancy, the greater the risk for a DS baby), the ultrasound results, and more before coming to a collective risk for the pregnancy.
Ultrasound itself has up to a 5% rate of false positive diagnosis of DS. Therefore amniocentesis or choriaonic villi sampling are used to further diagnose a pregnancy is normal or DS, and both of these invasive tests have false positive rates too though exceedingly rare, so chromosomal tests are as trusted (gold standard) as it gets in the prenatal period.
One other wrinkle in all of this is that Ultrasound and the triple Test are not nearly perfect and may be falsely negative. That is why doctors use several modalities in trying to diagnose DS in the fetus.
Digesting all this information for a pregnant woman can be overwhelming and frightening. Hopefully the physician can gently help the woman/couple to understand.
Here is a link with a discussion of this topic that seems OK in its content.
Glad to hear your child is well!
The tests themselves are not
September 19, 2008 - 06:15 ET by motherbeltThe tests themselves are not mandatory, but I believe obstetricians are required to explain and offer them to women over 35. At least that's how my OB explained it to me at the time. BTW, I refused them, and he said "OK fine" and never mentioned it again.
Yesterday morning I wrote
September 19, 2008 - 10:17 ET by marpelYesterday morning I wrote this in one of Mark Finkelstein's blogs. I am so glad I finally saw that I was not the only one to be horrified by Sally Quinn, so thanks for posting. Here is what I wrote:
Someone needs to slap that woman, Sally Quinn.
When I lost my 3 day old daughter to a genetic defect, and got pregnant with my son (who is now 28), I went to a doc for a recommended amniocentisis. The doc wanted me to sign an agreement that stated that I agreed to abort my child if the results of the test showed there was a problem. I told him where to stick his agreement and walked out. After losing my daughter, if my second child had even Down's Syndrome, I knew I would adore him or her as much as if they were normal. I went through my second pregnancy not knowing, and lo and behold, I had a perfectly normal little boy. But, Ms. Quinn, even if you think you need to kill a Down's Syndrome infant, I bet there are more Moms than you think, like Sarah Palin, who will love and care for any special needs child they have. I just wanted my next child to live. I bet there are a lot of women out there who feel the same way. Screw you, Sally Quinn!!
When someone is executed,
September 19, 2008 - 10:33 ET by nkviking75When someone is executed, he receives the benefit of a trial with a jury of 12 of his peers. The state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty. Then he gets to argue why he shouldn't get the death penalty. In some states, when the death penalty is handed down, the accused gets an automatic appeal. But nearly all such convictions are appealed anyway. The appeals usually last for years and often turn on minor technicalities. If the sentence gets through all that, it'll be many years before it is carried out. More than a few prisoners on death row will die of old age, the death penalty having never been carried out.
Babies can be aborted for no reason at all.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
nkviking
September 19, 2008 - 11:58 ET by lotrThank you for illustrating the moral nonequivalence of death sentences and abortion.