We are all much more than the sum of our DNA

Michelle says:

10:01am | 09/10/12

Decline could be one word - different is another,  families may be enriched in other ways.
The argument could be used that poorer families - don’t get the holidays and toys that more affluent families are able to give their children, however the experiences that families make with what they have can be more enriching and rewarding - the same can be used for families of children with needs.

martin english says:

04:06pm | 09/10/12

heh it’s not punch, it’s the internet.

Seriously, though, my nephew, now 22, has been very badly physically disabled since birth. Sometimes, I’d think about what my sister has been through, and I would wish he had died at birth. When I think about watching the wrestling or the footy with him or arguing with him about his taste in music, I am so glad he didn’t.

scott says:

10:28am | 09/10/12

@ Choice

Are you seriously comparing your to cancer to that of someone being born with a crippling disability?

Choice says:

10:56am | 09/10/12

@Scott - NO I am not comparing my cancer to to that of someone born with a crippling disability.  I am not at all attempting to get into a “my genes are worse that your genes” argument and I apologise to Stella, it that is how my comment came across.
I was agreeing with the article that Stella wrote and used my personal family history to explain how I could have at least some empathy with a family that has to make a choice to test for/make a decision base on genetic testing - whether it be for rampant cancer, Downs syndrome, OI, Cystic Fibrosis or any other genetic abnormality.

Respectfully - I am comparing the genetic screening process that occurs for both and the thought process that all parents need to undertake.

Kika says:

11:55am | 09/10/12

You’ve hit the nail on the head with this one

“I am pro choice for women and their partners who have to make the choices about their unborn child – but as Stella states – the decision needs to be made with ALL the relevant information”

Women aren’t given ALL relevant information about terminations regardless. They often turn up at the docs, confirm they are pregnant and if this is bad news rather than the wonderful news we all expect a pregnancy brings often they’ve been given the referral to the clinic before they have all the information they have regarding the pros and cons of keeping or terminating their child.

Knowledge is the key and the medical system as it is now seems to push women through without much care to their circumstances, lives, reality. It’s sad.

brisbane says:

12:21pm | 09/10/12

Scott are you serious suggesting I should think you are capable of some rational thought.

brisbane says:

12:22pm | 09/10/12

Scott are you serious suggesting I should think you are capable of some rational thought.

scott says:

10:50am | 09/10/12

Is that a bad thing though?  Personally, I am not equipped to handle caring for someone with a disability, and would have done the exact same thing if I were in your family member’s position.

Sonja Couroupis says:

05:26pm | 22/10/12

Agree… I wonder what parents would say if our medical world encouraged parents by describing the joy their child would bring them. What a sad world that aborts 90% of these awesome people… how is that not discrimination?! Stella, I watched Insight and thought you summed it up so well. I also loved that you asked how the couple with the severely disabled child would have faired if given the support they needed. This also goes for women (and men) who believe they are unable or ill prepared to care for a child (as i once thought)... Once they hold that divine little person, those fears disappear. It is amazing how women and couples find the strength when it is needed. Power to ya Stella! xo

Colin says:

11:31am | 09/10/12

@Mack 10:31am | 09/10/12

Are you serious..?

Who, on Earth, would WANT to have a disabled child to look after for the rest of their -and your - life?!? That’s not selfishness; it’s about not wasting TWO lives..!

Tim the Toolman says:

11:58am | 09/10/12

“Disability doesn’t fit very well into their ‘it’s all about me’ mentality.”

I suggest you apply for a writing position for a major media outlet.  Your ability to turn a very complex and interesting issue into a bland “Hur hur…Gen Y suck” comment, is impressive.

Mack says:

12:02pm | 09/10/12

Ah Colin, I rest my case…..

Peter Scott says:

12:17pm | 09/10/12

@Mack

If you want to be a martyr and dedicate your whole life looking after a disabled child which I assume you would give birth to despite the existence of those screening tests then go ahead and indulge in your selfish choice, but don’t you dare criticize the rest of us who think rationally

Colin says:

12:30pm | 09/10/12

@ Mack 12:02pm | 09/10/12

“Ah Colin, I rest my case…..”

What case..? You show that you would happily lumber yourself - and your disabled progeny - with a difficult and torturous life because - somehow - it is the “Noble” and “Right” thing to do and shows that you are altruistic and unselfish..?

All it shows is that you would happily waste TWO lives…how can you possibly justify wanting otherwise as selfish when - really - it is just plain common sense..?

ianc says:

01:24pm | 09/10/12

Colin I’m not sure if you are very naive or very young or perhaps just a fool. Many couples apply to adopt babies with a disability. So don’t imagine everyone shares your simplistic common sense. There are thinking people in this world and you don’t belong.

Colin says:

01:41pm | 09/10/12

@ianc 01:24pm | 09/10/12

“Colin I’m not sure if you are very naive or very young or perhaps just a fool. Many couples apply to adopt babies with a disability…”

Lots of people take drugs or eat blood sausage too…Come to think of it, lots of people believe in a Sky Fairy, like to smoke cigarettes and also gamble, none of which makes any difference; your Argumentum ad Populum stance just doesn’t hold water. If people are silly enough to waste their lives, that’s their choice. But don’t go calling me out as wrong if I don’t choose to do so…

Louise says:

05:34pm | 09/10/12

@ Colin, what would be your position then if by chance your child’s disability was an acquired one post birth?  Would you ‘waste’ your life caring for them, or would you throw them onto the scrap heap for someone else to care for as you deem yourself incapable of doing so?

ianc says:

09:38am | 10/10/12

Colin I did’nt call you wrong I called you a fool..You asked the question “Who, on Earth, would WANT to have a disabled child to look after..”. I responded that many couples apply to adopt a child with a disability. Only the most misinformed would call this Argumentum ad Populum. And only the most desperately misinformed would consider that blood sausage, gambling, smoking and sky fairies have any relevancy in this debate.

teresita1897 says:

05:03pm | 16/10/12

@ Colin - I sincerely hope that nothing will ever happen to you or your loved ones that would render you permanently disabled… And if, God forbid, something like this should happen, I hope that those around you are a lot more generous in their self-giving than you are.

Tim the Toolman says:

12:13pm | 09/10/12

“There is no gene for the Human Spirit.”

Not one, gene, no.  There’s a pile of them and how they are expressed goes toward the way a person reacts.  Unless, of course, we are going down the track of assuming people with depression are just weak and not applying enough willpower, or that people with tumors on their brains who turn violent just weren’t trying hard enough.

It’s more complicated that this, as environment can affect us at a fundamental level, but, that’s the gist of it.  There’s no magic spirit, just environment and genes.

Scotchfinger says:

01:22pm | 09/10/12

@Tim the Toolman, what about someone who finds happiness from belief in a ‘magic spirit’? Will you tell them they have no right to be happy as it is a state of mind based on a false premiss? Like being happy from the pursuit of wealth or sex?

Tim the Toolman says:

02:05pm | 09/10/12

“Will you tell them they have no right to be happy as it is a state of mind based on a false premiss?”

They have the right to do whatever they wish.  I have the right to point out why they are wrong, however.  They may continue to hold the view despite all evidence to the contrary, and that’s also their prerogative.  That’s not generally someone I would bother conversing with on such topics, however, unless they are going to bring new and relevant evidence/ideas to the discussion. 

How much harm do you think has been born of belief in a magic spirit, that lives after we die?  I personally think that it is a short term trade for happiness that allows for the acceptance of ongoing suffering.  Why bother making things better here, when there’s something better when you die?  Just put up with it and know that there’s something better for you after this misery.

So…to answer your question with another question…is it morally acceptable to ignore the propagation of a belief that allows for the perpetuation of real suffering in society for short term happiness of the individuals?

Scotchfinger says:

02:44pm | 09/10/12

faith does not look for empirical evidence, indeed faith by definition finds such evidence irrelevant. That’s why it is called ‘faith’; only when a person accepts a concept on its own merits, despite knowledge of alternative concepts, is it true faith. For instance, brainwashing or indoctrination has nothing to do with faith. This is why you can’t convince a Christian that Christ never turned water into wine, despite reasonably pointing out that such a thing could not happen.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:57pm | 09/10/12

“This is why you can’t convince a Christian that Christ never turned water into wine”

Ergo, they are disconnected from reality and are unwilling to change.  That is not an admirable or desirable quality.  Further, a quality that actively causes harm to humanity and is unwilling to change, is particularly bad and should be opposed whenever possible, should one have any interest in the long term well-being of humanity rather than just the short term happiness of individuals.

Scotchfinger says:

03:13pm | 09/10/12

I see. So you admit that happiness based on religious faith has no right to exist (‘should be opposed whenever possible’)  in a secular society. Hmm, what other aspects of culture would you like to see excised from civilisation? Aboriginal rituals? Buddhist temples? Funerals - why not just chuck bodies into a hole, they are dead after all? Pretty grim view of humanity you have there.

Tim the Toolman says:

03:30pm | 09/10/12

“Pretty grim view of humanity you have there.”

On the contrary, if I had a grim view of humanity, I would happily encourage people to believe whatever they wished, regardless of the rather predictable harm that would ensue. 

I simply contend that there is a better path for humanity if it exorcises (pun noted) fanciful beliefs.  I would also argue that a grim view of humanity is that it is too fragile to face reality without inventing stories to help it along.  Not just religious faith, either, but faith in anything that lacks evidence.  For example, homeopathy etc…which can cause harm for the short term happiness of an individual.

Scotchfinger says:

04:49pm | 09/10/12

well Tim unfortunately for you, the scientifically validated society you envision is nowhere in sight. Nice that you have such faith in the progress in science, that causes no suffering, is regulated by impartial (non-ethical - ethics are subjective) interests, can describe the full breadth of human emotion and feeling, and proceeds only with caution where errors can be dangerous. I’ll leave you with your Bertrand Russell omnibus collection.

Tim the Toolman says:

05:50pm | 09/10/12

Alas, you are quite correct, Scotch.  As always, thank you for the discussion

Scotchfinger says:

06:33pm | 09/10/12

likewise, Tim. Always enjoy a discussion with a man of learning, who likes a bit of a spar he he.

PS actually I share many of your misgivings about religious indoctrination and blind, unreasoning dogma. However I also believe faith can add a dimension to the human spirit, without actually being all that religious myself.

Sickemrex says:

06:54pm | 09/10/12

More Tim! More Tim! More Tim!

Loosy says:

12:38pm | 09/10/12

John,

ICB on your comment on genes acting just as a probability.  My paternal aunt died young of breast cancer (age 40 in the 1980’s) and her two daughters inherited the BRCA gene mutation (the gene that predisposes someone to breast and ovarian cancer) from both parents (yes, males carry it too).  Both daughters, now in their mid 30’s have breast cancer and one also has ovarian cancer on top of breast cancer.  Both girls live an active and healthy lives (moreso than their parents generation, fit, eat well etc) so the cancer likely wasn’t caused by lifestyle factors (I say likely because no one knows what other triggers are with the exception of genetics in this case).

Thankfully, through genetic testing, my side of the family have not inherited this from my father.

Whilst my example is probably an extreme case and you may have a point in some instances but you simply cannot extrapolate your “theory” to all cases especially with complex diseases like cancer.

Choice says:

01:12pm | 09/10/12

@John.
Not correct.
Not all cancer is cause by food and environment.
Amongst others, there are gene mutations that cause an increase risk of Breast and Ovarian cancers (currently identified is BRCA1 and BRCA2 and a couple of others).  These have been identified through scientific analysis of the genes of families that have an increased risk of cancer.  This gene has been found all over the world not just the west, and can be traced back thousands of generations, so the comment about crappy western diet is entirely wrong.
You may be slightly correct about some increase in some families risk of cancer being their diet - as obesity and alcohol are known to slightly increase the occurrence of cancers.  BUT not sure about your comment on dairy and meat being the cause - I dont have the scientific knowledge to refute or agree with that.

Tim the Toolman says:

12:10pm | 09/10/12

“Most people I know had the tests for the same reason. “

I would have absolutely no issue aborting based on screening.  There is no rational reason for bringing a life into the world, with no say in the matter, disabled, when an alternative available.

Levi of Bris says:

11:47am | 09/10/12

Too bad you weren’t terminated Colin. I find it unfortunate that the human gene pool may potentially be sullied by offspring who could carry your callous and robotic approach to human life.

I take it you wouldn’t be upset in the slightest if your missus had a miscarriage? Afterall, it wasn’t a person, and it was defective, so you and your missus wouldn’t be sad at all would you?

Colin says:

12:05pm | 09/10/12

@Levi of Bris 11:47am | 09/10/12

Now, see, that’s the problem Levi; you act as if miscarriage was some sort of thing limited to the human race and not something of the greeter Animal Kingdom of which we are part…And, as a result, you - and many others - attach larger meaning via social constructs.

So, yes, it WASN’T a person, it WAS probably defective and you move on. Sure, you are sad that you tried and failed, but you take heart in the fact that the next one is viable. But that does not alter the fact that it wasn’t a person but just a zygote or a gamete; just a collection of cells…

Tim the Toolman says:

12:05pm | 09/10/12

Well, Levi, you certainly improved the tone of the conversation there.  Wishing someone had never been born.  Nice.

FWIW, though I would have chosen different language, his essential points are logically sound.

K2 says:

12:18pm | 09/10/12

Levi, there is a difference between being sad, and actually having to make the decision.  While I dont particularly agree with the genetic elitist viewpoint (given that most of us would have been terminated if eugenisists had their way), I think talking about things like miscarriage is exactly the point here.  Miscarriage is natures way of saying there was a problem or complication.  This miscarriage happens to protect the mother, naturally.  Any number of reasons can be cited for miscarriage, stress, deformation, ectopic etc etc.  Whats the difference between having to terminate an ectopic pregnancy, and a pregnancy where the child has a genetic disability?  Some people are able to remove emotion from a decision and make a logical, moral decision without emotion being the driving purpose of the decision - having said that, then following up with an emotive comment like “sully the gene pool” is a little bit ridiculous

sunny says:

01:21pm | 09/10/12

Colin - surely society values people for their minds and personalities, creativity and cleverness more than their bodies. Who cares about the gene pool except deluded Nazi types, as if the current gene pool is some pristine font of perfection. They (and you) are kidding themselves. Smart, likeable, articulate people (like Stella) are what makes the human race better off . And I’m not saying that dumb supermodels and elite sportspeople don’t also have a place.

Colin says:

01:33pm | 09/10/12

@sunny 01:21pm | 09/10/12

I don’t think that the Gene Pool is, “...some pristine font of perfection…”; far from it. But it is a dangerous path fraught with many dangers where a society allows dangerous mutations to be reintroduced into the genetic amalgam…

Remember that - once - it was also socially acceptable to leave any newborn that was “Not Quite Right” out on a cliff ledge overnight for the animals to take…and human robustness improved over the generations.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:07pm | 09/10/12

“surely society values people for their minds and personalities, creativity and cleverness more than their bodies. “

These are all attributes that can be improved, or suffer decline, through the attributes of genes.  Your genes are part of a symbiotic relationship with the environment, that determine who you are and how you act.

sunny says:

04:48pm | 09/10/12

Colin - “But it is a dangerous path fraught with many dangers where a society allows dangerous mutations to be reintroduced into the genetic amalgam”

Now there’s a sentence full of danger!

I reckon it would be a dangerous path if “society” disallowed the birth. That type of closed minded society you’re talking about wouldn’t last too long. Where would they (we) draw the line?

It would also be a closed minded society that disallowed the parents to have an option. So the society we have here now has got it about right in that the choice comes down to the parents.

Further to that I reckon that now we’re in the Couch-and-TV-olithic era, that kind of survival-of-the-fittest mentality is no longer relevant. Open mindedness is far more beneficial to society.

Kika says:

11:58am | 09/10/12

And we’re not just talking about affordability in the financial sense - some people just aren’t emotionally or psychologically equipped to deal with the challenges that come with having a disabled child. Anyone can be a mother or a father, but to be a good Mum or Dad, especially when you have a disabled child, is especially tough and I applaud all parents who do choose to keep their disabled children through thick and thin.

jade (the other one) says:

12:29pm | 09/10/12

@Kika - I applaud all parents who choose to only bring a child into the world when they are financially, emotionally, mentally and physically capable of raising a child.

Sticking by your child through thick and thin without the mental, emotional or financial resources to do so is obstinate and ultimately bad for the child.

Anne71 says:

12:45pm | 09/10/12

Well said, Jade and Kika. It would be a terrible decision to have to make,  and I would never judge anybody for making the choice to terminate. All very well for others to point a self-righteous finger and say that they are Bad People for doing so, but it’s so easy to say that when it’s not actually them who would have to spend the rest of their lives taking care of a profoundly disabled person who will never be able to take care of themselves.

I remember, when I was a child, one of the neighbours had an adult disabled son. She loved him dearly, and he was well looked after,  but her greatest worry was what would happen to him when she died, as he was incapable of caring for himself.  I suspect that is a question in many parent’s minds when they’re making *that* decision.

Allie says:

12:08pm | 09/10/12

“Stella, if “we are not the sum of our DNA” then why do you feel the need to identify as a “feminist”?  Surely that defines you above any other person who does not identify as this, given that to be a feminist requires you are female, a DNA based designation.  “

What trollop. Being a feminist doesn’t require you to be female! My partner (who is male) considers him a feminist, as do many other men I know. 

And how on earth does defending women’s rights “ignore that men are equal too”? 

Furthermore, nowhere does Stella write that she “defines” herself as anything - your comment is the first to mention the word. Considering yourself x, y or z doesn’t mean that you “define” yourself by those characteristics or ideas.

In trying to fault this woman based on imagined logical errors, you’ve completely missed the point, while also making logical errors of your own. How embarrassing!

Uncomfortable says:

12:34pm | 09/10/12

@Allie

Your partner can claim anything they want but I’m here to tell you, he isn’t a feminist. He’s just not interested in arguing with you and is more interested in continuing getting laid. Nothing more, nothing less. And that goes for the ‘many other men I know’ (or at least claim to know).

The only other option is that he’ll be out of the closet soon enough.

K2 says:

12:44pm | 09/10/12

Allie, the opening sentence of the article - “As a disabled feminist” so if this isn’t defining oneself, I don’t know what is. 

Theres absolutely nothing wrong with gender equality, but why call it “feminism”, the early feminist movement was about womens suffrage etc great things, but these days feminism is more about immasculating men than it is womens rights (as you yourself said that you husband identified as a feminist) then I doubt he understands the movement at all.  If its gender equality then why say “feminist” because it has the designation FEM in it, meaning it only applies to females, if you don’t see this then you are blind Allie.  To call it feminism BY DEFINITION makes it about women, which ignores completely the similar need for mens rights to be recognised.  Why segregate these?  Why segregate based on DNA? These are the issues she is talking about, and yet she segregates based on DNA from her own opening statement.  Surely you read the article Allie?

I think its you that has completely missed the point.  Stella argues that we shouldn’t discriminate based on DNA, and yet words like “feminist” do exactly the same.  This is hypocritical.  To argue ones rights matter more than anothers defines something based on DNA as being different, and yet on the same hand argue that we should treat those with genetic conditions the same because we are not the sum of our DNA reeks of hypocricy.  Womens rights should be no more important than HUMAN RIGHTS in general.  Why should we create “feminist” groups when human rights are important not just female rights?  Don’t you get it? 

Obviously not - how embarrassing for you.

Allie says:

12:53pm | 09/10/12

@Uncomfortable - thanks for the heads up!

Clearly we swing in different circles.

Bertrand says:

02:20pm | 09/10/12

@k2 : I think the reason the author referred to herself as a ‘disabled feminist’ in the opening line of the article is because the article is examining how these two aspects of who she is as a person in some ways conflict with each other when it comes to the issue of aborting pregnancies involving a fetus that has been identified as carrying a genetic disability.  I suspect your post has less to do with finding a flaw in the author’s argument and more to do with your own opposition to feminism.

sami says:

03:04pm | 09/10/12

“this in itself ignores that men are equal too”
Ah, no it doesn’t. It is in fact quite the opposite.

“these days feminism is more about immasculating men than it is womens rights”
Again, no, no it is not. A few loudmouthed women do not speak for all feminists. Stereotyping is lazy, I’d advise you not to indulge in it.

I will stop being a feminist when women and men are equal and have the same opportunities in life. Even the little things that may mean nothing to you all add up and mean something to me.

For example- getting married? The default is for the woman to change her last name. This is not always the case, obviously, but the fact that it is still the default assumption means that equality is not there. That’s just one tiny example but I’d be beating my head against a wall trying to explain it to some people so I won’t go on. I accept that your mind won’t be changed, because you don’t believe sexism still exists. Just know that because something is not your reality doesn’t mean it is not mine.

K2 says:

03:10pm | 09/10/12

@Bertrand - I assume you are channeling Bertrand Russel, or perhaps it is your real name but that I doubt. - Your presumption about my meaning shows that you made an emotional judgement rather than a philosophical one. 

What Stella seems to suggest is some kind of “genetic equality, in the face of dissimilarity, but in the same breath speaks of a similar dichotomy, my point being that it is human conditioning that causes both that which she recognises as divisive and also that which she does not even realise she just made division with.  She has based her argument that preconceived ideals dictate the decisions, but does not see that preconcieved ideals also dictate her own decisions, all be the basis of comparison differing.

Bertrand Russell determined man to be “the product of causes ... his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms, that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, that the whole temple of man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand ... ”

K2 says:

03:31pm | 09/10/12

@Sammi - as you have also made an emotive response to “feminism” comments, I suggest you consider the following;

In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as loaded term, emotive language, high-inference language or language persuasive techniques) is wording that attempts to influence the certain audience by using an appeal to emotion.  (In the topic above the appeal to emotion regarding disability, right to life, and DNA based termination decisions.)

The appeal to emotion is often seen as being in contrast to an appeal to logic and reason. However, emotion and reason are not necessarily always in conflict, nor is it true that an emotion cannot be a reason for an action. Murray and Kujundzic distinguish “prima facie reasons” from “considered reasons” when discussing this. A prima facie reason for, say, not eating mushrooms is that one does not like mushrooms. This is an emotive reason. However, one still may have a considered reason for not eating mushrooms: one might consume enough of the relevant minerals and vitamins that one could obtain from eating mushrooms from other sources. An emotion, elicited via emotive language, may form a prima facie reason for action, but further work is required before one can obtain a considered reason

I am asking Stella to move beyond her Prima Facie

Bertrand says:

04:46pm | 09/10/12

@K2 - I stand by my statement. You are presupposing that feminism is about promoting divisiveness and inequality, when for most feminists it is not. As I said, your argument has more to do with your own attitudes towards feminism than any problem with the author’s arguments in the article.

Jay2 says:

02:23pm | 09/10/12

James. I can clearly see you are not normal and I’m not keeping my mouth shut, so you are incorrect in that assertion.
You present as being an anti social narcissist , but I forgive you as you probably lack the tools to recognise that fact and therefore you have not done anything about it.

Where there are people, there are inevitabley health complications and unless you have elevated yourself to a Godlike status, James, you do will require some medical care at some point in your life and thus cost society money.
Most people secretly agree with you James??? If you say it is so, it will be.lol.

CK says:

05:41pm | 09/10/12

First of all, I’d like to thank Stella for a great article.

Secondly, I find the statement, “Most people secretly agree even if it contradicts their liberal values (ie tolerance, just not my kid)” to be very condescending. Just because people openly disagree with you doesn’t mean they secretly agree with you. They just don’t agree with you because they have a different world view or different experiences. Period.

As for ‘affects us all’, a lady with osteogenesis imperfecta was voted into the UK parliament. Yeah, she ‘affected’ policy and government in a country. I know of someone with OI working in community services. You know how this person is ‘affecting us all’? By working in an understaffed industry, paying taxes and improving the quality of life of people in her community. What a ghastly drain on our money this person is! Statistics would tell us that a child of parents who come from generational welfare and drug issues will quite possibly cost enormous amounts over their lifetime. Should they be aborted on the basis that stats indicate they might cost a bit and affect us?

Your perception that people with disabilities have nothing to offer but a drain on the system and the costs of ‘genetic defection’, seems somewhat outdated. Thank goodness we have some law and policy to ensure such attitudes aren’t allowed to permeate our public spaces, workplaces and facilities.

Jay2 says:

03:09pm | 09/10/12

Yes, but how does anybody predict what they may or may not cost society?

Cancer costs society, treatments are hideously expensive. Diabetes costs society. continuing testing/treatment expensive. Accidents cost society.  Obesity costs society. Dementia costs society. Poor dental health costs society. Depression and other mental health conditions cost society. Smoking cost society. Alcohol costs society. Having babies and dying costs society.

Unless one can guarantee that they will never have an accident; never get cancer; not have babies; not have children; never need any diagnostic testing and not die , you cannot then point the finger at what somebody with a disability may or may not cost society, when you yourself at some degree and point, will cost society. I guess that is what living in a society entails really.

So sooner or later, EVERYBODY costs society.

Loxy says:

03:27pm | 09/10/12

Actually seniorcynic what you said is completely untrue. At all women’s first ultrasound the doctor looks for markers of genetic abnormities. If the ultrasound shows the baby has a certain number or more of the markers then the doctor will immediately recommend an amniocentesis test to confirm one way or the other (no matter what age the women is).

As women have their first ultrasound at 3 months, this allows for time to do further checks via the amniocentesis test and abort, if they choose.