Susan Finally Gets Pregnant With Down Syndrome Essay

As a child, Down syndrome was a part of my everyday life. I was watched after every day for the first ten years of my life by a women who was also looking after her sister who had Down syndrome. To me it was nothing unusual. It wasn’t until about eighth grade that I realized that to other people it wasn’t normal, it had a negative connotation. Growing up around a person who has Down syndrome made me see things differently than others. Once I realized not everyone else’s perspectives were the same as mine I became really aware of how others treated and reacted to people with Down syndrome. Its years later and I came across a story told by a women named Bethany Van Delft about Down syndrome.

Susan has being trying for many years to have a child but she couldn’t concide at any other time but the one that God choiced for her. It’s unfortunate that the doctors told her that her baby will be born with down syndrome, however that those not give her the right to distroye something that God has created in his own image. One way she can handle this issues is to pray to God for him to restore the health of child before delivery or she can listen to Richard whom, obvious does not believe in a God and regret her decision forever. This can be a difficult call to make for a non believer, because most of them think of the physical aspect of life, like Richard said it is be to end the misory of both the child and the mother.

“What’s wrong Kevin you got Sara pregnant?” my brother jokingly questions Kevin. Kevin mumbles back, “Nah man I wish it was that, but man its Bryan, he hasn’t been home in 2 days.” Just like many others I’ve seen my fair share of missing person’s papers, but I’ve never stop to think what it felt like to have to put them up. Never stopped and thought what it’s like to look for someone and have nowhere to start or have any clue where the person is or what might have happened to them.

Pre-screening for disabilities and genetic enhancement are vital factors in the decision to place restrictions for selective genetic abortion. All human life should be of equal worth, supporting the ideal that life-and-death decisions for seriously compromised newborns should not be based on the quality of life (CITE 3). Screening for genetic diseases through the use of in vitro fertilization, or IVF, limits and excludes those with disabilities from our society, exposing limits on morality. These include transgression of divine laws, transgression of natural laws, introduction of an unacceptable risk of harm, introduction of a threat to genetic diversity, introduction of a threat to one’s common genetic heritage, paradoxical counterproductively, a misuse of social resources, a widened gap between the “haves and “have nots”, promotion of social conformity and homogeneity, and lastly undermining free choice (Fisher, 2013). From these points it is important to recognize the impact it has upon our society, and how we perceive, and behave towards those with a disability. The practise of introducing selective abortion through the use of IVF and genetic testing will create a hostile environment going forward into the future for those who escape detection before birth. This will cause potential discrimination against those with a disability, making them liable to be looked down upon by the community and unfit to be alive (Fisher, 2013). Thus this can create a second class or even a

Two years ago I could remember sitting in class as we discussed current topics that came on the news the night before. The topic of a baby who was born having Anencephaly condition stirred a controversial yet emotional debate. This is a condition where the rostral (head) end of the neural tube fails to close resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp. In other words, the baby has ‘no brain’. The child was born having ‘frog-like’ features, protruding eyes, scaly skin. Also, there was the possibility that he could be blind and deaf. As we sat there sharing our own personal opinions of the situation, the question arose "what would you do if you were the parent of the child?" I started by saying I would have had an abortion the moment I realized that I was going to have a deformed child. I went on to say that I would have left "IT" at the hospital. My friends were extremely angered by the way I spoke about the baby; one got so upset that she started crying. "What have I done?" was my instant thought as I sat there heart pierced in dismay and embarrassment. She then asked the question, "What if your mom had aborted or left your brother at the hospital? What would you think of her?" In my mind, I believe that 's a different situation because his disability is different, so I thought. As I stopped to think, I looked how my de-humanized thoughts and selfish endeavors captivated my entire being. My mind was jailed with cruelty; I spoke like a barbaric

Prenatal diagnosis being used as a term for abortion and sex selection is difficult to view because of the polar opposites that exist towards its morality. The best way to tackle this issue is thru virtue ethics. Each have different motives for the abortion. However, each have selfish ambitions for the future. Sex selection in one case, Ann, should consider that the child can be happy in the event there is no disease. Likewise, if the child does have the disease the child still holds equal to humanity for with or without disease we are all human and deserve life. This act is therefore immoral. June is self-interested purely based on personal feelings, hence, is immoral due to the fact that selfishness is not virtuous.

If you could choose what characteristics your baby would have, would you even consider giving him or her a disability? With technologies today, you can now tell if your child is going to be born with a disability (Bradfield). With advancements in reproductive technology, this question is now a serious consideration for many aspiring parents because enhancements are available to mitigate disabilities in the pursuit of perfection (Verlinsky). When thinking about this question, many other questions arise. For example, what qualifies something to be considered a disability? I am going to discuss the ethics of in vitro fertilization, why I do not see in vitro fertilization as unethical, the ethics of designing your baby against disabilities, and why I think it is not morally wrong to design your baby.

Mrs.Donroe’s speech in class made a huge impact on me. The way she spoke about her child brought tears to my eyes. She was very honest and spoke of many of the struggles she has gone through with her child Kellyn, who has Down syndrome. I can relate to Mrs. Donahoe’s speech because my cousin Kimmy has Down syndrome. A lot more severe case of Down syndrome, because Kimmy can’t talk or walk. Not only did Mrs. Donahoe’s speech educate me more about my cousins disorder, but made feel sympathetic for my aunt, who has probably gone through the similar struggles as Mrs. Donahoe has.

As with any situation concerning a human life, this has produced ethical issues. For those who believe prenatal screening followed by abortion is acceptable consider it a moral duty for parents to prevent a disease or disability that could cause their child suffering if they have the means to do so. Just as a mother can change her diet during a pregnancy to prevent a mental disorder, parents can choose to abort a fetus to prevent that child from having a life of pain and suffering. To not prevent a disease or disorder is to disregard a child’s basic human desire to live a normal, healthy life, and is thus unfair to the child.

January 22, 2016 was the hardest but the most beautiful day of my life. The night before, I began to have pains, and I knew it was going to happen. I was finally going to have my baby. I was brought to the hospital, put into a delivery room and as the time passed the contractions came on stronger and stronger. The next thing I remember is the doctor and nurses telling me to push! My husband by my side looking scared as ever. I pushed and pushed as the tiniest little body came out, voice wailing then they put her in my arms. I knew, the minute they put her in my arms I knew she had Down syndrome. Why? Why my baby? I began crying out of joy but mostly out of fear and sadness, while my baby girl

Kass takes a consequentialist approach in arguing that society should act cautiously when determining policies concerning genetic abortion. The belief that all humans have a fundamental right to life is threatened by the ability to abort fetuses with an unfavorable genetic code. Genetic abortion, Kass argues, will affect the way in which our culture looks at individuals afflicted by genetic disease. The conception of disease will be shifted so that the patient will be viewed as a disease and abortion as the cure. Children who make it past detection, either by lack of available testing or error by the testing method, will be seen as defective human beings unfit to be a part of the rest of society. The distinction between “defective” and “healthy” individuals creates the precedence which provides the justification for the discrimination and elimination of other “defective” individuals. Genetic abortion may include Down syndrome and Tay-Sachs now; but may ultimately lead to the removal of members from disadvantaged social-economic groups or other “undesirables”. Kass’s argument is: 1) If genetic abortion treats individuals as defective or inferior, then it is morally wrong. 2) Genetic abortion treats individuals as defective and inferior. 3) Genetic abortion is morally

The Christian’s worldview proposal to resolve this dilemma is to go by what the “absolute truth” says is the correct way to act and treat others. “Without God, there can be no moral and spiritual absolute truths” (Lecture 6,” 2015). Thru God humanity has received the Moral laws by special revelation, which includes the two great commandments (Lecture 6,” 2015). We must love God with all our strengths and above all things and our neighbors as ourselves (Mark 12:30, 31). This is affirming that we need to protect and care for other people the same way we love God and love ourselves. In this case, the baby with Down syndrome must be protected by his mother, allowing the baby to live. God already gave life to the child “It was you who formed my

known risk factor is advanced maternal age-at age 35, a woman has 1 chance in

When such a condition is detected, or highly suspected, what then? According to Farrell et al., (2014) physicians are most concerned with the ethical issue of pregnancy termination. In the case of Down Syndrome, this is with good cause. A systemic review by Natoli, Ackerman, McDermott and Edwards (2012) found a weighted mean termination rate following a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome was 67%, with a range of 61% - 93%. The evidence they presented suggested that termination rates varied according to maternal age, race, and gestational age. (These variances alone open another ethical can of worms). But one can see, after only brief examination of this one genetic screen, why physicians, and society in general, should be concerned. There is no concensus regarding whether or not pregnancy termination is ethical in and of itself, let alone when one decides to terminate due to knowledge of specific genetic markers or

Down syndrome is a genetic disorder in which a person is born with an extra copy of chromosome 21. There are three genetic variations that cause Down syndrome: Trisomy 21, Mosaic Trisomy 21 or Translocation Trisomy 21. There are many ways in which theses disorders affect the body.  Trisomy 21 occurs when an egg or sperm comes in with an extra copy of chromosome 21, then, once an embryo is formed and starts to develop, the chromosome is replicated in every single cell of the embryo. Trisomy 21 is the most common type of Down syndrome. About 92% of Down syndrome patients have this type. People with Trisomy usually have physical problems.