My wife and I chose prenatal testing. Does that make us bad people?
Over the last couple of weeks, presidential candidate Rick Santorum has questioned whether prenatal testing and amniocentesis are moral medical procedures. He’s suggested that they tools designed, in large measure, to enable abortion.
And he believes the government should play no role in helping poor and underprivileged families pay for the procedures. “Free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions,” Santorum argues.
It turns out I know something about this issue.
When my wife Susan got pregnant a decade and a half ago, she was 41 years old. Our doctor made it clear at the time that amniocentesis and prenatal tests were the responsible way to go, reflecting the view of the vast majority of medical experts.
At our age, having a baby wasn’t exactly a daredevil stunt, but it came with risks. Knowing all the facts wasn’t just medically proper. In our judgment, it was the right moral choice for our family.
Along the way, as we discussed, deliberated, and educated ourselves, I learned quite a bit about what prenatal testing does (and doesn’t) do.
First, Santorum is correct that amniocentesis can help identify a wide range of genetic problems. And some doctors do encourage abortions if the fetus is seriously compromised.
Studies suggest that between 85 and 95 percent of women who find their their fetuses have Down syndrome choose to end their pregnancy.
But it’s important to point out that this choice is one that is made by private citizens, by parents, by people of faith, by men and women, and by parents.
It’s not the government, it’s not politicians, and it’s not some faceless medical bureaucracy. This isn’t China’s one child policy, or Nazi Germany’s search for racial purity.
This is just average Americans navigating painful and complicated moral terrain and making their own, independent decisions.
Those parents who choose to bring the fetus to term, raising a child with challenges and special needs, obviously have an equal right to make that informed, moral decision.
If I were interviewing Rick Santorum, I would ask him to be as blunt and plain about this as possible:
Should all families, regardless of class or income level, have the opportunity to diagnose serious illnesses during pregnancy, so they can make choices with the best available information?
Should they be forced to continue with pregnancies against their will, even if a fetus is significantly disabled or severely compromised?
I would also ask him to explain why his moral outlook should trump the thinking of the overwhelming majority of Americans who — according to the best studies and Santorum’s own admission — are now making a very different choice.
It’s also important to point out one place where Santorum simply has his facts wrong.
“Amniocentesis does, in fact, result more often than not in this country in abortions,” Santorum said, speaking on Face the Nation last Sunday. “That is a fact.”
Actually, it’s not. In most cases, amniocentesis finds no abnormalities or disorders. It simply provides parents with peace of mind.
In many other cases, treatable issues are found that warrant immediate medical care, including infections and RH incompatibility and lung immaturity in children who need to be delivered prematurely.
Here’s what the non-profit group March of Dimes has to say on the subject:
In most cases, amnio test results show that a baby is healthy and without birth defects. If the test shows that your baby does have a birth defect, talk to your provider about your options.
For example, your baby may be able to be treated with medicines or even surgery before birth. Or there may be treatments or surgery he can have after birth.
Knowing about a birth defect before birth may help you get ready emotionally to care for your baby. You also can plan your baby’s birth with your health care provider. This way, your baby can get any special care she needs right after she is born.
It turned out that our son Nicholas was healthy. What would my family have done if the tests had turned up major problems? As things stand, under current law, that’s our business, and no one else’s.
If Rick Santorum has his way, would this still be a private moral choice? Or would the government decide this for us? That’s another question I hope he will find time to answer before the campaign is done.
People like Santorum are giving morality a bad name. To hear them talk, morality is all about sex and only about sex.
“Studies suggest that between 85 and 95 percent of women who find their their fetuses have Down syndrome choose to end their pregnancy.
But it’s important to point out that this choice is one that is made by private citizens”
—-
Two issues. First, is the basic issue on abortion, which should not be taking place at all.
Second, is Obamacare. Even if you accept the premise of aborting a baby is “ok” (which I would not), once the government decides that a Down’s Syndrome babys is “more expensive” to care for than a “normal” baby, you can forget the notion of the decision-making being left to the private citizen.
When we had the discussion on Obamacare, prior to its passing, none of the Utopian pro-Obamacare promises seem to be materializing.
Cheaper health care – hardly.
Keep your own insurance – not when Obamacare starts making mandates
Private decisions about your health – ask a Catholic
JDM –
You’re saying the government should make these moral decisions on our behalf and saying that you’re afraid that at some point in the future the government might make these decisions on our behalf?
Brian, NCPR
“none of the Utopian pro-Obamacare promises seem to be materializing.”
That might have something to do with the fact that most of “obamacare” goes into effect in 2013 and 2014.
Ya know, for someone who is so vehemently opposed to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act you sure don’t know much about it.
Here is a fun “moral” question dilemma.
Should a person who want to join the police force be allowed to refuse to carry a gun because they are pro-life and opposed to killing?
I believe in a police officer’s right to choose.
Brian Mann: I am afraid that they will begin to make these decisions, in the future.
Peter Klein: no dilemma, here. There is no equating (in my circles) pro-life with a society having authorized use of force in policing or in soldiering.
Topic for another thread, sometime.
JDM “There is no equating (in my circles) pro-life with a society having authorized use of force in policing or in soldiering.”
Really? When is killing not killing? It seems to me there is some moral equivalence there. What about conscientious objectors in war?
JDM Says “Two issues. First, is the basic issue on abortion, which should not be taking place at all.
Second, is Obamacare.”
Re: The 1st. That’s your opinion. Why should your opinion be the law for all? And if that is what you think, why do you say you are afraid that the government will begin making these decisions?
Re: The 2nd. I’m ditto Dave. You clearly don’t understand how the ACA works.
I think it gets at the heart of the abortion dilemma; do we as human beings have the right to decide which lives are worth living or not? Given Brian’s statistic that the vast majority of Down’s children are “terminated” prior to birth; our society our culture is making a value statement about the value of the life people with Down’s Syndrome.
People in India and China make this same value judgment concerning girls and thus often abort if the sex of the child is a female.
For me I don’t think it is healthy for a culture to value life in this type of calculus. As far as amnio goes, I would be interested in the percentages? How many of the children with genetic defects are terminated after an amnio? Also what are the risks of the amnio test itself? We also had a child at an older age and did not do the amnio due to the risk to the fetus. But I make no judgments on anyone who decides differently. I would have a problem with someone aborting just due to downs though, I just can’t get my head around that sort of thinking.
Dave and Jim: I know enough about Obamacare to know that I don’t want it.
khl: “Really? When is killing not killing?” I’m really trying not to get too deeply into this. But you asked.
I will try to give an overview: Biblically, there is an ultimate punishment for sin, i.e. death. Death is a punishment for wrong doers. (we all deserve death, but God chooses to pardon those who believe that Jesus paid the substitutional death on the cross). In delegated authority, i.e. human authority, death is reserved for punishing, and enforcing, wrong doing. Killing an innocent differs from that.
I was a mom at the age of 36, so when it comes to amniocentesis, been there done that. My test showed a possible genetic issue that turned out to be a non-issue during follow-up testing after birth. When the possible glitch showed up, our health professionals had us sit down with a genetic counselor to fully explain the test results. Abortion never crossed our minds.
Brian, hats off for a very well written post here. You are spot on that prenatal testing is a personal health decision, made privately by families and their doctors. Mr. JDM, I do not believe that the Affordable Healthcare Act mandates in any way that a fetus with an extra chromosome must be aborted. Dealing with the information learned from prenatal testing will continue to be a personal, private health decision.
JDM, I’m an Atheist. I don’t believe in killing for any reason but I do understand that there are times when people and societies will do it for one reason or another.
I don’t appreciate your assertion that I deserve death. I expect to die because that is the way life works. Please remind me exactly when it is that we deserve death? Is it born in sin or conceived in sin? Are the egg and sperm without sin but the zygote is a sinner?
Freedom of choice and privacy in a time of a difficult ddecision. Bottom line.
Brian, i noticed that nowhere did you mention one’s religious beliefs, and frankly that is where the true controversy is.
Everything you mention is what intelligent, thinking, mora, true homosapien being would behave.
It’s why i harbor some reservations with any organized group that would try to intefere, never mind interject themselves into the decision.
Religion included. If we are to believe any of them, we all meet our maker and that is were, both you and that God know what was done, when and why.
ANYone here in this moral plane object to that, or dare to judge it, and they are not following their God’s teachings.
If you’re poor and you can not afford your decision, It should still be made reachable.
Any God would surely want that for his beloved creation.
If i am told, that because of religious reasons, i am totally of base, wrong out of my mind…then i am clear there is little use for any of them.
Once again I am confused. Conservatives are worried that “Obamacare” will put the government between you and your doctor. They don’t want that. These same conservatives think it is ok for the government to tell a women what she can do with her body or what she and her doctor decide about her pregnancy.
At least “Obamacare” forces health insurance companies to cover children born with Down’s or Fragile X or other pre-existing conditions. JDM wants these children born and then they and their families are on their own for the medical bills.
Brian, my wife and I made the same choice when she was the same age. No reason for anyone to be opposed to prenatal testing. For some people it is just helping prepare them for the special needs their children may have when they arrive.
It’s sad people like JDM can’t discuss issues like this on their own merits and feel compelled to shove the round peg into their own ideological hole. People who do this (and there are many on the left too) are more cartoon characters than people with independent thought.
RIP Critical Thinking. We hardly knew ya!
But is abortion acceptable for any reason? Girls, Down’s, perceived genetic differences from the majority, etc? There is no difference between aborting your child if they have Down’s than aborting your child if they they are a girl and you wanted a boy, its the same concept. I am sure we will have in the very close future genetic testing that will tell us the future IQ of our child, the psychological markers, the predisposition toward mental illness or physical illnesses; at that point are we comfortable with terminating those that don’t meet our standards or desires?
What does that say about how we view human life in general?
To me that is the road we are on, with 80% of all Down’s children killed before birth simply because they have Down’s, I think there is no doubt that is the road we are on.
PNElba: “JDM wants these children born and then they and their families are on their own for the medical bills.”
Not sure I could deduce that from my statements. Families can purchase health insurance. It is not unheard of for families to make these decisions.
khl: It is that we are conceived in sin. And we die because of sin. I see other opinions stated on this blog. We evolved from mud or some such stuff. You didn’t seem to mind that. What is it about truth that makes one so edgie?
JDM, I appreciate your belief in God. I know that religion give some people comfort. But don’t foist your belief on me. If you want to believe that you were conceived in sin go right ahead. I wasn’t.
And if God can do everything why can’t he make us evolve from mud?
I guess the answer to Brian Mann’s question, for some of us anyway, is Yes! you are bad people.
Brian, Going all the way back to your question and the title of the article…..No, and why would you ask anyone else’s opinion?
khl:
Isn’t it implicit that if you believe there is no God for you, doesn’t it follow that you believe there is no God for me, or anyone? Or is it just you who has no God?
If someone believes we evolved from primordial mud, doesn’t it follow that they believe we all evolved from primordial mud?
By the way, if anyone had the “provable” answer, then every logical person would adhere to the same theory. Fact is, there is so much unknown in everyone’s theory, that we all have to accept our theories “by faith”.
Back to Brian’s question: “If Rick Santorum has his way, would this still be a private moral choice? Or would the government decide this for us?”
Brian: Are you implying that Rick Santorum would mandate that the choice be taken away by the government, and that constitutes “the government decides for us”?
Because under the Obamacare of the 2013 and 2014, the government left itself an opening to make the decision for us, with options like “one child per family”, “manditory abortions”, “denial of services”. Isn’t that government deciding for us?
If you arent willing to have an abortion you probably shouldnt go ahead with amniocentesis. There isnt really a point to it otherwise. (yes you can be psychologically prepared etc – but that doesnt probably justify the risk of the amniocentesis).
Should the government force a woman (or couple) to carry to term a fetus that has serious genetic defects?
JDM – your theological position is a common American (evangelical?) one that I dont truly understand. It is against God’s will to kill the innocent (e.g.fetuses), but its ok to kill the guilty as punishment. Who decides guilt and innocence? I am assuming that fetuses are unambiguously “innocent” making abortion an easy decision. But who decides about that level of guilt?
This is different from my understanding of Catholic theology (at least the pope) that only God can make decisions about life. No suicide, no invitro fertilization, no abortion, no capital punishment (no murder either). An exemption is for self-defense which presumably permits war.
JDM – what you know about “Obamacare” is almost entirely wrong.
Families can purchase health insurance. It is not unheard of for families to make these decisions.
No they couldn’t. Not if there was a pre-existing condition.
Peter brings up a good point.
I don’t believe an unborn child with possibly severe genetic defects should be aborted; however I am not out of it so much as to think that is not a heart wrenching tough decision. The question is do we support families who have severely disabled children? As a culture do we welcome all children no matter their problems? Seems to me that we need to create a society and culture that helps and supports families in providing for their children and you will have less people aborting disabled children.
It has been said here that “Death is a punishment for wrong doers.”
If this is true, I must conclude plants, animals and the entire Universe are wrong doers too.
But stop and think for a moment, if it were not for death, Adam and Eve and we too would have nothing to eat. If it weren’t for death, the Earth would be wall to wall people and we would be worse off than people on a subway at 5 p.m.
So I ask this. Would you still love God if death were just a natural part of life? Would you still love God if death is just the end and there were no life beyond death? Is your ability to love God limited by the idea that you will have an afterlife in Heaven? Is your love of God so shallow that it depends upon you constantly being rewarded for “being good?”
I would suggest that a love that is always bought and paid for isn’t much of a love. It’s no better than the love a man gets from a prostitute he has bought and paid for.
I’m definitely voting for Santorum for Pope.
PNElba:
“No they couldn’t. Not if there was a pre-existing condition.”
I guess this goes back to what insurance is supposed to be. An insurance company is willing to accept a certain “small” amount of money for an unlikely event with the promise of paying a “larger” amount if the event occurs. In the meantime, they do what they can to invest the small amount to make a business case out of the venture.
The insurance company is taking on the risk. The person is paying someone to take on the risk.
If someone chooses not to involve themselves with insurance, they are at risk. That’s their choice. If they develop a condition that the insurance company will not accept the risk for, that was also a choice they made prior to getting insurance.
What is happening with this idea that the government must force the insurance companies to do something that does not make business sense, is itself, senseless.
Obama is not an insurance man. Most of the lawmakers couldn’t run an insurance business to save their lives. Why should they tell insurance companies how to operate their businesses?
ahah, oa good one.
I like Rick Santorum; I think he really is an honest straight shooter and I agree with much of what he says; and if it were not for his war stance I might vote for him, but anyone who is going to take us back to Iraq and into Iran and stay in Afghanistan forever is not someone I want to be President. Regardless a guy this socially conservative will not win the presidency. I mean look at this thread look how long and tangled it goes, think how many other social issues you have with this guy that will be a major distraction. He can’t win.
Jackie from NCPR here. I leave it to you all to continue to weigh in on this very important conversation, but as the mother of an adult son with Down syndrome, I want to share some basic info:
Down syndrome is the most commonly occurring chromosomal variation in humans. It is not an illness, it is a disability. Currently, one in every 691 babies born in the U.S. has Down syndrome. All people with Down syndrome experience some cognitive delays and limitations. These are usually in the mild to moderate range, and are not indicative of the strengths and talents that each individual possesses. There is an increased risk for certain medical conditions, but many of these conditions are now treatable, so most people with Down syndrome lead healthy lives. Life expectancy has increased dramatically in recent decades – from 25 in 1983 to 60 today. Unlike the old days when most were sent away to institutional warehouses and largely forgotten, people with Down syndrome now attend school, work, vote, volunteer, and live and participate in their communities in many ways.
Down syndrome is now detectable very early in a pregnancy through a very simple non-invasive blood test. It will likely become part of the standard array of tests that are routinely offered to pregnant women as part of routine prenatal care. These tests certainly raise ethical issues related to pregnancy termination and disability, but they also make it possible for urgent corrective medical treatment to take place before birth, and for parents to have time to prepare for a child with complex needs.
There are many resources and organizations in our region that can help individuals with Down syndrome and other disabilities and their families. If you know of someone who needs supports and services, feel free to email me ([email protected]) and I’ll help make connections.
If someone chooses not to involve themselves with insurance, they are at risk. That’s their choice. If they develop a condition that the insurance company will not accept the risk for, that was also a choice they made prior to getting insurance.
Yeah, I guess those Down’s syndrome babies should have purchased health insurance while in utero.
Seriously JDM, before the ACA you could be born with a pre-existing condition and be ineligible for health insurance. How is that a choice in not involving oneself with insurance?
I draw a distinction between someone with a condition they are born with, and those who make adult choices.
I don’t mix the two. They are not equal. If we’re talking about adult choices, don’t throw into the mix conditions of birth.
When it comes to adult choices, we live with them.
JDM, sorry, my mistake. I thought we were talking about pre-natal testing and congenital defects. But I’m always ready when you change the subject.
You can be an adult with a pre-existing condition (eg. diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis, cancer) who lost their job which had health insurance included as a benefit. Previously, without your job and no health insurance you would be ineligible for insurance due to a pre-existing condition. Now, with the ACA, at least the insurance company is required to cover you, albeit at a higher price.
I think it’s the nature of politicians in general to be humanity’s most virulent manifestations of Schopenhauer’s Will as an “aimless desire to perpetuate itself.” Santorum, through his need to control, perhaps inspired by the run of righteous popes for over a millennium, sees this issue as an opportunity to be slightly less aimless, for now anyway.
Santorum’s implication of prenatal testing as a cause of immorality is an attempt to pander to those who want the church to be vindicated at each and every step of the way (please note that my intention is not to advocate this formula: CHURCH = RELIGION).
So, Brian, please look for another reason to justify your suspicion that you’re a bad person.
Bob:–)
Let’s remember that prenatal testing can be used to save a baby’s life too.
Good person, bad person. Sometimes good people are bad people and sometimes bad people are good people.
After all is said and done, you need to ask yourself exactly what it is you want to be good for.
If you want to know what I am talking about, watch some TV westerns from the 50’s. Often it was the “good people” who were guilty of the greatest evils as they condemned others and washed their hands by saying, “May good have mercy on your soul.”
Santorum gives me the creeps!
DITTO what Paul said. Santorum is a creepy bible thumper, Romney is plain ackward and doesn’t ever seem genuine or passionate about anything, Gingrich is a lose cannon and Ron Paul is far out. Why did Pawlenty drop out so early?
JDM
Why do you care if I believe there is a God or not? How does my disbelief affect you?
I think people DO have provable answers to the question of evolution. Science has pretty well dotted all the i’s and crossed all the t’s on that one but you choose not to believe it.
I think I can make a very good, perhaps the best argument for the existence of God and how that existence works perfectly well with scientific knowledge: All has been revealed, it is all around you; and it is Man’s purpose to understand the Revelation. But the Revelation is not in a book or in your mind. The Revelation is in all that has been created.
Don’t get caught up in what is written in a book, God’s word is written all around you for you to open your eyes and see.
My biggest objection to organized religion is how small your idea of God is.
khl “Why do you care if I believe there is a God or not? How does my disbelief affect you?”
Why did you care that I made a statement about deserving death where I used the pronoun “we”? i.e. “we all deserve death”
Why do you care if I believe this? How does my belief affect you?
JDM,
It is just plain silly to say we all deserve death. Equally silly would be to say we all deserve life.
Pete Klein: We will be standing together someday, and our names will be called.
I sincerely hope that everyone I have come in contact with during my life will hear the words, “not guilty” pronounced over them at that day.
This discussion is why Santrorum can’t win.
I like him, but these issues are not really political or I should say can’t be solved by governments and the people that operate our governments, and he by his very nature will continually cause these sorts of debates and differences. Santorum is not creepy, you may disagree with him; but he is not creepy, Romney and Gingrich are much more creepy. I mean everyone who has ever had personal contact with Gingrich among his own party can’t stand the guy, most people who have worked with Santorum like him personally, even when they disagree with him.
Knuckle, I think Christian scripture celebrates the wonder and awe of God’s creation and I think, you are right His work is all around us and it is amazing.
Things are not right with humanity and have not been right for a very long time, thus as JDM says we all stand guilty. This also is self evident from simply looking around at how we interact with creation and each other.
Isn’t it ironic that two gut reaction issues in society today are gun control and abortion? Freedom to carry a gun but not freedom to decide whether or not to carry a baby to full term. Seems to me that freedom is a very gender based issue.
For this baby carried to full term and delivered then ceases to be an issue. The pro-life people seem to lose interest beyond the birth and the pro gun people seem to do the same, past the point of purchase.
Because of course, it’s in the aftermath where things can really get complicated and by all means let’s keep it simple- black and white, right and wrong, good and bad.
“let’s keep it simple- black and white, right and wrong, good and bad”
“Freedom to carry a gun but not freedom to decide whether or not to carry a baby to full term.”
Let’s keep it simple. Let’s ask the baby.
Let’s ask the baby to carry a gun?