crisis pregnancy centers as portrayed on Full Frontal

[MercyA]

Someone I know personally was told that she was unequivocally having a Downs baby.  She just refused that report, basically saying that she heard him and what he was saying, but she believed otherwise.  He thought she was a crazy woman, of course, especially being a person of faith.

Her child was perfectly normal. 

 

Yep. Someone once approached me in a parking lot after seeing the pro-life stickers on my car. He said, "Come here, I want to show you something" and motioned me over to his van. I was a little leary but was like, "Okay...." He opened the door of the van and pointed out a little boy inside. He said something like, "They said he was going to have Down's Syndrome, the doctors were absolutely sure. They told us we should abort him. Isn't he beautiful? He's perfectly normal." 

 

Now, I don't believe any babies should be aborted, whether they are disabled or not, but the doctors are definitely wrong sometimes. 

 

An interesting 6-year study published in the Lancet found that 174 fetuses out of a group of 33,376 "had a suspected abnormality identified on scan and subsequently proved to be normal." That's obviously not a huge percentage, but it's a large number of babies, regardless.

 

I highly recommend the book Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics.

[Murphy101]

I would so NOT tolerate the bolded. I've never been a typical patient, nor ever been to that type of doctor anyway, but geez. I would stop that in a heartbeat and they would probably kick me out for my noncompliance. ;)

 

I don't. I was adamant I wouldn't do it and no, it does not go over well. The routine is to schedule the counseling and the ultrasound but the woman might not know until she gets there that the counseling is scheduled with it or that it's first before they even have any results of the ultrasound. The general response to complaints is "but your insurance is paying for it". One, I don't have insurance. Two, my insurance isn't the one living with this or deciding my care. Three, the only reason to push this before a patient is presenting with any indicators there's even a suspected problem seems to strongly point to an established medical opinion that mothers should be swayed from getting too excited or hopeful about their babies to make it easier to encourage abortion. (And resulting numbers appear evidence it works.)

[MeghansMom]

As a rule, the pro life movement is in favor of restricting access to abortion. You may be the exception, but you may want to take a closer look at laws like the one vetoed in Oklahoma this past week.

 

 

I did take a look and so did my daughter. We prayed it would be vetoed and was very glad when it was. I know plenty of pro-life that feel the same.

[poppy]

Yep. Someone once approached me in a parking lot after seeing the pro-life stickers on my car. He said, "Come here, I want to show you something" and motioned me over to his van. I was a little leary but was like, "Okay...." He opened the door of the van and pointed out a little boy inside. He said something like, "They said he was going to have Down's Syndrome, the doctors were absolutely sure. They told us we should abort him. Isn't he beautiful? He's perfectly normal." 

 

Now, I don't believe any babies should be aborted, whether they are disabled or not, but the doctors are definitely wrong sometimes. 

 

An interesting 6-year study published in the Lancet found that 174 fetuses out of a group of 33,376 "had a suspected abnormality identified on scan and subsequently proved to be normal." That's obviously not a huge percentage, but it's a large number of babies, regardless.

 

I highly recommend the book Defiant Birth: Women Who Resist Medical Eugenics.

 

 

I honestly can't see doctors telling a woman "this baby will have downs syndrome, you should abort him".

I can see offering it as an option. I can see laying out the challenges of having a child with downs syndrome. I can also see how someone, particularly someone waiting to be offended, and on edge due to a diagnosis, might hear that as being pushed to have an abortion.    But I know a couple OBs. I just can't see "you should have an abortion" coming out of their mouths  in that scenario. I really don't.

[poppy]

No, I don't think amnios were as common before abortion was legalized.  It was a new idea to my mom when they tried to push it on her - and she was a person who read a lot and knew enough to correct doctors and protect her kids from more than one birth injury.  She took the time to read up on it and learned that (at that time) the test itself killed 3% of the fetuses.  But even after she brought that up, they tried to tell her she *had* to have the test done because of her age.  Luckily she is not one to be pushed around.

 

It's a nice thought that docs are respectful of women's wishes and don't push, but people are telling you it does happen.  Either they are lying or there are doctors who aren't respectful of women's wishes.  And yes, it is related to the cutoff for legal abortion.

 

I get that.   Like I said, I know a few OBs.  I can absolutely believe they are not ........ well I wouldn't say not respectful of women's wishes. But an OB is a surgeon. Surgeons are not generally known for their bedside manner, and for good reason.

 

But again, being high handed is one thing. "You should have an abortion for this condition [which is not life threatening]"? No.

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by poppy

[SKL]

You don't want to believe what people are telling you.

 

Basically they go on and on about what a horrible life the child is going to have and how his birth is going to devastate your family and ruin your other kids' lives.  Abortion is absolutely recommended.  No, they don't tie women down and force the abortion right there, but it's much more than just informing a person of the test results and options.

 

There is a reason why 90% of Down syndrome babies diagnosed prenatally are aborted (maybe more now).  It isn't because the doctors all say "congratulations, you're going to have a beautiful baby with an extra chromosome."

Edited May 22, 2016 by SKL

[Murphy101]

I'm a bit unclear now because some of the comments on this thread suggest that

 

it's ok to make women sit through a bunch of counselling about her fetus & have a bunch of invasive tests if she comes in for an abortion

but it's not ok to make women sit through a bunch of counselling about her fetus & have a bunch of invasive tests if she might be carrying a child with a genetic disease

 

 

Of course that's what I'm saying. A woman who wants to keep her baby should not be pressured to abort it. A woman who does want an abortion is considered in crisis and needs counseling and help.

 

I'm also against forcing everyone to have mental illness counseling but for people who present with problems or are seeking mental illness treatment to be given counseling and help.

 

It's somewhat standard to not treat healthy people for conditions they don't need treatment for.

[MercyA]

I honestly can't see doctors telling a woman "this baby will have downs syndrome, you should abort him".

I can see offering it as an option. I can see laying out the challenges of having a child with downs syndrome. I can also see how someone, particularly someone waiting to be offended, and on edge due to a diagnosis, might hear that as being pushed to have an abortion.    But I know a couple OBs. I just can't see "you should have an abortion" coming out of their mouths  in that scenario. I really don't.

 

I suppose the guy could have been lying to me (unlikely), or remembering things indistinctly (possibly), but he and his wife had the definite impression the doctors were encouraging them to abort their child. 

 

Just doing some quick Googling, I found that an estimated 92% of babies with Downs in Europe and 67% of babies with Downs in America are aborted (wikipedia). It's horrific that such a huge segment of the population is, in effect, being culled. I personally don't believe doctors are always carefully neutral. Just read some of the stories in the book I recommended above.

[poppy]

You don't want to believe what people are telling you.

 

Basically they go on and on about what a horrible life the child is going to have and how his birth is going to devastate your family and ruin your other kids' lives.  Abortion is absolutely recommended.  No, they don't tie women down and force the abortion right there, but it's much more than just informing a person of the test results and options.

 

There is a reason why 90% of Down syndrome babies diagnosed prenatally are aborted (maybe more now).  It isn't because the doctors all say "congratulations, you're going to have a beautiful baby with an extra chromosome."

 

I am skeptical, yes.   It just doesn't make sense to me.  That most doctors really love to ferret out possible abortions by pushing genetic tests. Why would that even be? Is it an evil scheme get more non-governmental funding for planned parenthood?

 

I don't think anyone is lying. But do I think every perception (sometimes 2nd or 3rd hand) written out here is accurate and not skewed by disgust with the legality of abortion? I do not.

[hornblower]

Of course that's what I'm saying. A woman who wants to keep her baby should not be pressured to abort it. A woman who does want an abortion is considered in crisis and needs counseling and help.

 

 

 

Wow. It's as if you're saying by definition a woman seeking termination is crazy. 

 

See, I think every woman should be treated respectfully and should choose what procedures she wants done without being lectured. Respectful education and providing information is part of providing medical care to ensure informed consent. 

 

Women who are pregnant and want to terminate are not mentally ill or deranged or in crisis & do not need special counselling. 

 

Women who refuse medical testing even if they're at higher risk or who refuse termination of a non viable fetus also are not mentally ill or deranged and do not need special counselling.

 

It's just their choice.  If they're having difficulty making a decision or struggling with their choices, they should be directed to counselling from a clinical psychologist who will help them clarify their own thinking so they can make their OWN choice. 

 

[SKL]

I suppose the guy could have been lying to me (unlikely), or remembering things indistinctly (possibly), but he and his wife had the definite impression the doctors were encouraging them to abort their child. 

 

Just doing some quick Googling, I found that an estimated 92% of babies with Downs in Europe and 67% of babies with Downs in America are aborted (wikipedia). It's horrific that such a huge segment of the population is, in effect, being culled. I personally don't believe doctors are always carefully neutral. Just read some of the stories in the book I recommended above.

 

The denominator of the 67% includes babies who are not diagnosed until after birth.  Many Americans don't get that much testing done before the babies are born.  Those cases are not included in the 90% figure I mentioned above.

 

[poppy]

I suppose the guy could have been lying to me (unlikely), or remembering things indistinctly (possibly), but he and his wife had the definite impression the doctors were encouraging them to abort their child. 

 

Just doing some quick Googling, I found that an estimated 92% of babies with Downs in Europe and 67% of babies with Downs in America are aborted (wikipedia). It's horrific that such a huge segment of the population is, in effect, being culled. I personally don't believe doctors are always carefully neutral. Just read some of the stories in the book I recommended above.

 

I believe he sincerely believes that, but, if I read the story right..... this is a random guy you met in a parking lot right?

 

I think it is terribly sad that babies with DS are so often aborted.

 

It's something my husband and I talked about quite a bit when we decided to start a family. His dad grew up with a guy with DS whose parents had a really, really tough time.  Of course that is 50 years ago.  And his mother was a special ed teacher (back when they called them "special ed teachers") and he had some hard stories from that as well. We talked a lot about what we would do and made a decision together that no matter what happened, we would love whatever baby we had. I'm really glad we had a chance to have that conversation and commitment between us.

[SKL]

Wow. It's as if you're saying by definition a woman seeking termination is crazy. 

 

See, I think every woman should be treated respectfully and should choose what procedures she wants done without being lectured. Respectful education and providing information is part of providing medical care to ensure informed consent. 

 

Women who are pregnant and want to terminate are not mentally ill or deranged or in crisis & do not need special counselling. 

 

Women who refuse medical testing even if they're at higher risk or who refuse termination of a non viable fetus also are not mentally ill or deranged and do not need special counselling.

 

It's just their choice.  If they're having difficulty making a decision or struggling with their choices, they should be directed to counselling from a clinical psychologist who will help them clarify their own thinking so they can make their OWN choice. 

 

 

Well I do think it is appropriate to confirm that the pregnant person is not being coerced into aborting a baby she personally wants to keep.  Because I think we would all agree that's not "her own choice."

 

And abortion is not the only context in which women are offered the chance to confidentially discuss what they feel in possible opposition to significant others.  For example, nowadays doctors routinely ask me "do you feel safe at home?"

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well I do think it is appropriate to confirm that the pregnant person is not being coerced into aborting a baby she personally wants to keep.  Because I think we would all agree that's not "her own choice."

 

And abortion is not the only context in which women are offered the chance to confidentially discuss what they feel in possible opposition to significant others.  For example, nowadays doctors routinely ask me "do you feel safe at home?"

 

 

Pretty sure that isn't mandated by legislators who also want you to watch video of abused women while being "counseled".

[SKL]

But if a woman goes to a service whose name implies pregnancy counseling, then why in the world would it be wrong to provide counseling?  She can get up and leave if she decides she wandered into the wrong storefront.

 

If you're at an OB talking about an obviously wanted pregnancy, why would the doc assume you want to abort a viable baby?

Edited May 22, 2016 by SKL

[Carol in Cal.]

I am skeptical, yes.   It just doesn't make sense to me.  That most doctors really love to ferret out possible abortions by pushing genetic tests. Why would that even be? Is it an evil scheme get more non-governmental funding for planned parenthood?

 

I don't think anyone is lying. But do I think every perception (sometimes 2nd or 3rd hand) written out here is accurate and not skewed by disgust with the legality of abortion? I do not.

I think part of what motivates OB's to push these tests so hard is the fear of losing a wrongful life suit.  

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-wrongful-birth-malpractice/

 

It's not just the OB's that do it, either.  There is a general assumption that if you refuse amnio and you're 35 or over, you're some kind of nut.  It comes up with colleagues and friends and management as well as medical folks.  

[MercyA]

I believe he sincerely believes that, but, if I read the story right..... this is a random guy you met in a parking lot right?

 

I think it is terribly sad that babies with DS are so often aborted.

 

It's something my husband and I talked about quite a bit when we decided to start a family. His dad grew up with a guy with DS whose parents had a really, really tough time.  Of course that is 50 years ago.  And his mother was a special ed teacher (back when they called them "special ed teachers") and he had some hard stories from that as well. We talked a lot about what we would do and made a decision together that no matter what happened, we would love whatever baby we had. I'm really glad we had a chance to have that conversation and commitment between us.

 

Yes, it was a random guy I met in a parking lot, purely anecdotal information. I don't find the anecdotal information about your ob/gyn acquaintances terribly compelling, either. ;) It's difficult to get hard facts about this type of thing. Who's going to actually admit to pressuring patients into their decisions? 

 

I think most of us here on the forum don't have any trouble asking the right questions of doctors, doing our own research, and coming up with our own conclusions. Not everyone is like that. I know an awful lot of people who take a doctor's word as gospel and who are unduly influenced by them. 

 

I'm glad you and your husband decided to love whatever baby you had. I wish more would do the same. People shouldn't be killed because they're going to make life harder for other people.  :(

[poppy]

But if a woman goes to a service whose name implies pregnancy counseling, then why in the world would it be wrong to provide counseling?  She can get up and leave if she decides she wandered into the wrong storefront.

 

If you're at an OB talking about an obviously wanted pregnancy, why would the doc assume you want to abort a viable baby?

 

Aaaaand we're back to the start of the thread.  Places whose names are intended to deceive ("pregnancy choice center") whose actions deliberately delay leaving ("your test will be ready soon, but here is some information you should have beforehand" ) or provide inaccurate sonograms (showing a heartbeat before a heartbeat is detectable).

 

I know early on you said "everyone" knows these crisis pregnancy centers are intended to sway people away from abortion. But if that was the case, why would there even be a need for an expose?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But if a woman goes to a service whose name implies pregnancy counseling, then why in the world would it be wrong to provide counseling?  She can get up and leave if she decides she wandered into the wrong storefront.

 

If you're at an OB talking about an obviously wanted pregnancy, why would the doc assume you want to abort a viable baby?

 

In some states, she may not leave if she wants to be able to receive an abortion.  You really don't know what you are talking about here.

[hornblower]

Well I do think it is appropriate to confirm that the pregnant person is not being coerced into aborting a baby she personally wants to keep.  Because I think we would all agree that's not "her own choice."

 

And abortion is not the only context in which women are offered the chance to confidentially discuss what they feel in possible opposition to significant others.  For example, nowadays doctors routinely ask me "do you feel safe at home?"

 

The corollary to that surely is that women should be asked to confirm that they're wanting to continue this pregnancy. What if they were coerced or guilted into carrying when they really wish to terminate? 

 

[Carol in Cal.]

.

 

I know early on you said "everyone" knows these crisis pregnancy centers are intended to sway people away from abortion. But if that was the case, why would there even be a need for an expose?

To inflame public opinion in a fairly misleading way.

[SKL]

Aaaaand we're back to the start of the thread.  Places whose names are intended to deceive ("pregnancy choice center") whose actions deliberately delay leaving ("your test will be ready soon, but here is some information you should have beforehand" ) or provide inaccurate sonograms (showing a heartbeat before a heartbeat is detectable).

 

I know early on you said "everyone" knows these crisis pregnancy centers are intended to sway people away from abortion. But if that was the case, why would there even be a need for an expose?

 

Again, the "expose" was a tasteless joke, not a documentary.  It makes no attempt to be "factual."

 

There probably are some people who are surprised at what they encounter in a pregnancy counseling center, but then again, there are people who are surprised they are pregnant too.  There are people who are surprised that pregnant women are pushed to have tests they don't want and/or encouraged to abort babies they do want.  Maybe there should be an expose for each of these categories of surprises.

 

Edited May 22, 2016 by SKL

[SKL]

The corollary to that surely is that women should be asked to confirm that they're wanting to continue this pregnancy. What if they were coerced or guilted into carrying when they really wish to terminate? 

 

 

And I'm sure they are asked to confirm same, when tests show abnormalities.

 

Asking to confirm one time and then respecting the answer would be fine.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

To inflame public opinion in a fairly misleading way.

 

How does "everyone" know this?

[poppy]

Again, the "expose" was a tasteless joke, not a documentary.  It makes no attempt to be "factual."

 

There probably are some people who are surprised at what they encounter in a pregnancy counseling center, but then again, there are people who are surprised they are pregnant too.  There are people who are surprised that pregnant women are pushed to have tests they don't want and/or encouraged to abort babies they do want.  Maybe there should be an expose for each of these categories of surprises.

 

 

Ah, you are saying they're just stupid. I understand.

 

But why are you so outraged when I don't believe every word posted about upsetting things that happen in doctor's offices-all the pushing for genetic tests? How is that different?  Or is it that those women are NOT stupid, but, women who don't know that "Crisis Pregnancy Center" is code for "Anti-Abortion Counseling" are stupid?  

 

Wait. Maybe you don't know this. Samantha Bee is a former correspondent for the Daily Show.  Like that show, her program is not "tasteless jokes [with] no attempt to be factual".  They are social commentary that uses humor to help convey its message.  It is political. It is not scripted, fake, made up.

Edited May 22, 2016 by poppy

[SKL]

Ah, you are saying they're just stupid. I understand.

 

But why are you so outraged when I don't believe every word posted about upsetting things that happen in doctor's offices-all the pushing for genetic tests? How is that different?  Or is it that those women are NOT stupid, but, women who don't know that "Crisis Pregnancy Center" is code for "Anti-Abortion Counseling" are stupid?  

 

Well, I believe my mom and the women on this board over some fake ridiculous tasteless joke put out by a decidedly un-serious operation (full frontal or whatever).

 

But maybe I'm stupid.

 

[SKL]

Wait. Maybe you don't know this. Samantha Bee is a former correspondent for the Daily Show.  Like that show, her program is not "tasteless jokes [with] no attempt to be factual".  They are social commentary that uses humor to help convey its message.  It is political. It is not scripted, fake, made up.

 

Did you watch the linked video?

 

[hornblower]

And I'm sure they are asked to confirm same, when tests show abnormalities.

 

Asking to confirm one time and then respecting the answer would be fine.

 

 

why only when tests show abnormalities? Women may wish to terminate for a whole bunch of reasons. 

 

& as to your second point - women seeking a termination should also just be asked to confirm once and then their answer would be respected? 

[EmseB]

Ah, you are saying they're just stupid. I understand.

 

But why are you so outraged when I don't believe every word posted about upsetting things that happen in doctor's offices-all the pushing for genetic tests? How is that different? Or is it that those women are NOT stupid, but, women who don't know that "Crisis Pregnancy Center" is code for "Anti-Abortion Counseling" are stupid?

 

Wait. Maybe you don't know this. Samantha Bee is a former correspondent for the Daily Show. Like that show, her program is not "tasteless jokes [with] no attempt to be factual". They are social commentary that uses humor to help convey its message. It is political. It is not scripted, fake, made up.

Have you ever heard from people who do daily show "interviews" for the segments they run? Regardless of topic, they are curated, spliced, and edited to make them funny and to make the interviewee look foolish or outrageous. Surely you don't think those things are intended to be taken as documentaries? Or as real, even?

 

I had heard people got their "news" from the daily show, as in, learned about current events there, but to take their segments as not scripted or fake? SMH. They do exactly that to make it fit their show.

[poppy]

Well, I believe my mom and the women on this board over some fake ridiculous tasteless joke put out by a decidedly un-serious operation (full frontal or whatever).

 

But maybe I'm stupid.

 

Go back and read what you wrote about women who do not know that they are being tricked by places whose name and advertising is intended to deceive, and then tell me again how respecting women is important to you.

[SKL]

why only when tests show abnormalities? Women may wish to terminate for a whole bunch of reasons. 

 

& as to your second point - women seeking a termination should also just be asked to confirm once and then their answer would be respected? 

 

To your second paragraph, it depends on the context.  If a woman goes to a crisis pregnancy center that does NOT advertise itself as an abortion provider, then it seems reasonable to begin with the assumption that she wants to discuss all her options, including carrying the child to term, and to understand what abortion is, as opposed to just being advised she can legally have one.

 

When a woman is pregnant and goes to an OB and does not state she wants an abortion, it seems reasonable to begin with the assumption that she wants to carry the child to term, and by the way, it is pretty normal to provide information on just what happens when a woman gives birth.  Even though maybe that would make some women afraid to give birth, it would seem very irresponsible to forge ahead without ever discussing what is going to happen down there (to the mom and the baby).

 

When a woman goes to an operation that advertises itself as an abortion provider, it seems reasonable to begin with the assumption that she wants an abortion, BUT because we know many women are coerced into aborting, it is responsible to get that confirmation in a confidential setting.  Having done that, it is responsible to tell the woman just what's going to happen down there (to the woman and the fetus).  Even though that information might cause the woman to feel differently and change her mind.  Because that's what "informed consent" is.

 

I didn't make all the laws in all the states, some of which arguably go beyond and some of which arguably don't go far enough.  So don't try to hold me to every abortion-related law in the USA.

[poppy]

Have you ever heard from people who do daily show "interviews" for the segments they run? Regardless of topic, they are curated, spliced, and edited to make them funny and to make the interviewee look foolish or outrageous. Surely you don't think those things are intended to be taken as documentaries? Or as real, even?

 

I had heard people got their "news" from the daily show, as in, learned about current events there, but to take their segments as not scripted or fake? SMH. They do exactly that to make it fit their show.

I would say the exact opposite. The show makes the person being interviewed look smart, and the interviewer look dumb. That was the whole shtick of the Colbert Report in particular. It wasn't my cup of tea, but , that is how they got rather VIP guests of both parties come again and again.

[SKL]

Go back and read what you wrote about women who do not know that they are being tricked by places whose name and advertising is intended to deceive, and then tell me again how respecting women is important to you.

 

See, I never said that.  I said using the word "choice" or "pregnancy" in one's name does not equal "we are here to perform abortions."  Just like using the word "parenthood" in "planned parenthood" doesn't equal "we are here to encourage parenthood" and everyone - OK, almost everyone - knows it.  In other words, I didn't see evidence of "intended to deceive" in the OP link.  There probably are some operations out there that do deceive, but the OP link applies an extremely broad brush.

Edited May 22, 2016 by SKL

[EmseB]

I would say the exact opposite. The show makes the person being interviewed look smart, and the interviewer look dumb. That was the whole shtick of the Colbert Report in particular. It wasn't my cup of tea, but , that is how they got rather VIP guests of both parties come again and again.

I'm not talking about the in studio stuff with stars and politicians. I'm talking about the segments that the "correspondents" did.

[poppy]

See, I never said that. I said using the word "choice" or "pregnancy" in one's name does not equal "we are here to perform abortions." Just like using the word "parenthood" in "planned parenthood" doesn't equal "we are here to encourage parenthood" and everyone - OK, almost everyone - knows it. In other words, I didn't see evidence of "intended to deceive" in the OP link. There probably are some operations out there that do deceive, but the OP link applies an extremely broad brush.

If everyone knows it , rename the places 'choose life center' and everyone is happy . I have no problem with the service they perform for people looking for that service. But you can't honestly believe every pregnant teenager who sees a 'Scared? Pregnant ? Alone? We can help' billboard somehow knows 'this is a Chrisitan mission service' . And the decision to not put that info on any of the marketing is telling as well. Edited May 22, 2016 by poppy

[EmseB]

At our local PP, there was a big banner out front that said "Planning for Parenthood is Sacred Work". It's almost like they were trolling pro-lifers.

[MercyA]

Mercy, I wish you'd reconsider your language in this thread. 

 

My friends whose daughter was severely disabled and unlikely to survive to term wasn't 'killed because she was going to make life harder for her parents/society.'

 

They made a choice to terminate mid-pregnancy based on a number of factors - their convenience wasn't one of them.

 

I find your verbal characterizations hurtful on their behalf. 

 

I appreciate your polite and respectful request, Sadie. I was responding directly to poppy's post, in which she seemed focused on the parents who had a "really, really tough time" raising their son with Down Syndrome. While I do feel for parents who have more challenges than most, it's still not right to abort children because they are disabled. 

 

I have no doubt that your friends did not abort for reasons of "convenience." I would save that characterization for people like those who told a friend of mine that they just didn't have room in their car for another car seat and that they wouldn't be able to afford a particular vacation if they allowed their third child to live. I do believe it's wrong to kill people because they're disabled or because they're not expected to have a lifespan as long as the rest of us, and I can't apologize for that.

 

I find language like "termination of pregnancy" to be disrespectful to those who are actually losing their lives. It is a phrase intentionally used to soften the reality of abortion. 

 

I like you and really don't enjoy knowing that I have offended you. Usually I would be willing to change my language, but not in this case. I would have to go against my conscience to use words that make it seem as though only a pregnancy, and not a life, is being lost.

 

I am sorry. 

[poppy]

I want to be clear I was talking about raising a child with Down syndrome in the mid-late 1950s til .... I believe he lived until the mid 1980s. I don't think it's comparable to today . I hope it is better. I am not in a position to have to know. My oldest has moderate special needs but not that particular set of challenges.

[SKL]

I had a family member with Down syndrome who was born about 1930.  She lived a full life (though like a young child) until about 1995.  Her lifespan was unusual for those times, yes.  But there's quite a range of outcomes with Down syndrome.  I am pretty confident that the % of DS fetuses with seriously devastating prognoses is much much less than 90%.  Something else is driving that statistic.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

At our local PP, there was a big banner out front that said "Planning for Parenthood is Sacred Work". It's almost like they were trolling pro-lifers.

Sounds pretty honest from their perspective.

[MSNative]

I honestly can't see doctors telling a woman "this baby will have downs syndrome, you should abort him".

I can see offering it as an option. I can see laying out the challenges of having a child with downs syndrome. I can also see how someone, particularly someone waiting to be offended, and on edge due to a diagnosis, might hear that as being pushed to have an abortion. But I know a couple OBs. I just can't see "you should have an abortion" coming out of their mouths in that scenario. I really don't.

I was told with two pregnancies that my babies would have Downs and I was strongly encouraged/pressured to have abortions. With my third I was told that his internal organs had gaping holes, that he would be malformed and in extreme pain for whatever amount of life he had. I was encouraged/pressured even more strongly to have an abortion. My older ones do NOT have Downs. They are perfectly healthy. My youngest has some issues but nothing at ALL like what I was scared into thinking he might have. Different drs and nurses, different states, all highly encouraging of aborting early lest one be saddled with a less than perfect baby.

 

I'd also love to think that all drs and nurses don't suggest that women have abortions. I'd love to think that they simply supply information and resources in a nonpartial manner. Unfortunately my experiences and those of others- on this thread and IRL - prove that that isn't the case.

Edited May 23, 2016 by MSNative

[heartlikealion]

I have mixed feelings on the counseling in one scenario vs the other. I don't know that I'd stick around an office for an hour of any kind of counseling that I didn't request. Stick around after tests results for some more info, sure. But if someone was going on for an hour and making me uncomfortable I think I'd need to excuse myself.

 

I cannot imagine the ob/gyns I've met push abortion, though I've never been in the situation in which it would come up I suppose. I live in the Bible belt and I just cannot fathom that. I mean, there was a Bible in the waiting room in at least one of the offices I went to.

[zoobie]

If everyone knows it , rename the places 'choose life center' and everyone is happy . I have no problem with the service they perform for people looking for that service. But you can't honestly believe every pregnant teenager who sees a 'Scared? Pregnant ? Alone? We can help' billboard somehow knows 'this is a Chrisitan mission service' . And the decision to not put that info on any of the marketing is telling as well.

And don't spend taxpayer money supporting deceptive religious groups. The Samantha Bee segment was in response to a Senate Bill in Georgia giving these groups $2 million. http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/05/10/samantha-bee-with-help-from-patton-oswalt-takes-aim-at-georgia-legislature-again/

 

But you know, let's slash food stamps for children who are already here in the name of fiscal responsibility.

[MercyA]

I want to be clear I was talking about raising a child with Down syndrome in the mid-late 1950s til .... I believe he lived until the mid 1980s. I don't think it's comparable to today . I hope it is better. I am not in a position to have to know. My oldest has moderate special needs but not that particular set of challenges.

 

I'm sure that was really hard for them, especially during a time when many parents were pressured to institutionalize their disabled children. (I know residential care is sometimes necessary even now, but I think it was often just expected at that time.)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And don't spend taxpayer money supporting deceptive religious groups. The Samantha Bee segment was in response to a Senate Bill in Georgia giving these groups $2 million. http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/05/10/samantha-bee-with-help-from-patton-oswalt-takes-aim-at-georgia-legislature-again/

 

But you know, let's slash food stamps for children who are already here in the name of fiscal responsibility.

A former member here who was very anti-choice once informed me that if a parent couldn't afford to feed their children then they should be given to someone else. When I mentioned this didn't seem to jive with her goal of ending abortion or her "Christian" ideals, she pointed out that no one good those women to get pregnant in the first place.

 

Figured I would share since others are throwing out their anecdotes.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'm sure that was really hard for them, especially during a time when many parents were pressured to institutionalize their disabled children. (I know residential care is sometimes necessary even now, but I think it was often just expected at that time.)

It was. DH's brother was expected to enter state care in the early 60s, but his parents chose to keep him. It has been a struggle and DH was stressed at the prospect of raising s child like his brother.