I pulled your post.

Down Syndrome is not a disease. You may not say that here. It is a genetic condition, but not a disease state.

Down babies are not diseased. Period.

I will not allow posts to stand which deny or distort scientific and medical truth in order to set the stage for slaughter.

Alexandria may be a blog more suitable to truth denial and distortion.

Here we deal with medical facts.

I never equated a dog with a human being.

I’m interested in seeing your response to Kris’s post.

(We had gotten a little off topic by the time you got here, so I’m glad you got us back on track.)

Your little girl is absolutely precious, and I know God has a special purpose for her – and she is perfect the way she is!

(P.s. I just noticed that I have also used the term Down’s syndrome instead of Down Syndrome- I wasn’t aware that it was incorrect. Sorry about that. I will be sure to fix that in any of my future posts! )

Bethany is expressing that she sees things very differently than I do. There is no answer to that except, that we disagree.

Gerard, your imputation of brutality comes down to a distinction which Bethany and I have sparred over before.

Down’s syndrome does not define a kind of person. It is not a race, or skin color, or geographically defined culture or a religion, nor is it an occupation (such as tanning leather) which made the practitioners “unclean” in ancient Israel, medieval Japan, and Aryan India.

Down’s syndrome is a disease. It is genes gone wrong. It imposes all kinds of hazards and suffering on those who have it. Rod Dreher recently ran a post asking, if there were a cure for Down’s syndrome, would you give it to your child. He and I, possibly with different philosophical underpinnings, both thought, as did many others, that this is a no-brainer. Of course you would.

***No, Down syndrome is not a disease. It is a set of characteristics that result from an extra 21st choromosome, the smallest choromosome in the human body. While it is possible for those who have Ds to have a higher risk for certain medical conditions (such as a heart defect), many are perfectly healthy. There is no increase in suffering. All humans have the potential for suffering; it is not any higher for an individual with Ds. I saw a recent survey come out of Canada. When parents of children with Ds were asked if they would “cure” their child, the response was this: 60% said they would either NOT cure their child (if given the chance) or were not sure. Here is the article : http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/11/down-syndrome-treatment.html While it may be hard for you to understand, I would be one of those parents who would not “cure” my child of Ds. There is no need, in my opinion, because there is nothing wrong with my daughter.***

Unfortunately, it is very difficult to “cure” a genetic disease. If a cure for Down’s syndrome, a complete cure which would adjust the chromosomes, remove the extra pair, restore normal gestation resulting in a human being with full normal function to be expected from 23 healthy genetic pairs, if that were possible, that would of course be the number one choice.

***As I explained above, it is a misconception to assume that parents would want to take away an extra chromosome in their child. Also, all of the chromosomes in an individual with Ds work perfectly fine, just as a typical person’s would. They simply have an extra one.***

If you respond further on this point, I must ask you to specifically address, do you object (on principle) to sorting out the sperm and egg in advance, so that when conception occurs it is free from Down’s syndrome? If you don’t, if you could accept such a procedure, then our difference is simply that you consider any stage from zygote on to be a human being. If you do object to even trying to make sure no zygote has Down’s syndrome in the first place, if you have fallen into the hideous rationalization that Down’s syndrome identifies a type of person which must continue to be expressed in the human population, under some twisted distortion of “diversity,” then we have a huge gulf between us.

***”Sorting out” the egg and sperm that may produce a child with Ds is impossible. For the sperm, it is impossible for obvious reasons….there are millions and how could you predict which would be carrying the extra 21st? For the egg is is also impossible because the extra 21st is added in during the last division process, just hours before conception. Also, in the case of about 10% of individuals who have what is called Mosaic Ds, the extra 21st comes later in the development, perhaps after the first eight rounds of cell division. Many people on this planet who have loved someone with Ds would tell you that the world is a BETTER place because of individuals with Ds, not the other way around. I guess this is a matter of opinion, and grace.***

The latter viewpoint should, logically, extend to a quota system requiring that in every generation, a certain number of families MUST bear children with ALS, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, because these genes have a right to be expressed in the population, or because “this kind of people have a right to exist too.” Nonsense. Insofar as we can do so without killing a live individual, anything we can humanely do to insure that these genes are not inflicted on future generations is on the same moral level as eradicating smallpox. The difference is that smallpox is induced from outside, while genetic diseases are inculcated into the very fiber of our being.

***If you are arguing to do away with those born with disabilities, than you must, logically, also argue to do away with those who become disabled later in life, through accident or stroke or disease. The undesirable are the undesirable. Why would it matter if they have experienced the birth process or not?***

Have I ever met people with Down’s Syndrome? Many. Those I have met were long since born, and abortion is not an issue for them. It never will be. Would I inflict what they suffer from on another baby if I could help it? Absolutely not. I would prevent it if I possibly could.

***Again, those with Ds do not suffer any more than those without Ds. It is a myth to say they do. If you’d like to take a peak at my darling, here is my blog. I promise you, she is NOT suffering http://partyofnine9.blogspot.com/ ***

Of course we differ on whether second trimester abortion is an appropriate remedy. To me, it is removing diseased tissue and starting over. You view it in the same manner I view killing a five year old who has a genetic disease — we both agree that is wrong — because you view any stage of gestation from zygote on as a human being entitled to protection, while I see a small window, 4-6 months, where there is still time to start over, we don’t have a baby yet.

***Start over? Once you are a mother or father, you will always be a mother or father. Death does not change that. The only differece between me and a mother who chose abortion is this: I get to enjoy the incredible blessings my daughter brings to my life while the mother who aborts quite often has a life-time of suffering over the loss of her dead child.

If you have any questions, please let me know. I’d be glad to continue to educate others on anything to do with Ds. If I do not know the answer, I will find out! Peace. Kris ***

Doggie parents cannot do so, for themselves, or for their litter of pupplies. Doggie parents can raise up their puppies to do so when they are full grown.

Whereas, human babies are born to, and cared for by, human parents capable of all of the above, who can teach their children to do the same.

Stop looking for ways to equate dogs with human beings. It is a really back-handed way to make a very sad point.

See, the problem with this argument is that a baby cannot build their own house, play an instrument, write a symphony, bake a loaf of bread, or plant a garden.

They have the POTENTIAL to do this later on, but they cannot do it when they are newborn.

(just as a human zygote cannot do these things yet either, but have the potential to do so in the future).

If you use the argument that it is the baby’s potential to do these things that makes it human, then you also have to concede that a zygote is a human being based on the same criteria.

When I say “how do you prove that a dog is not a human being”, I am NOT asking, “How do you prove that a dog should not be valued in the same way as a human being is valued”

It is very simple, using basic biology, to explain the differences between a newborn human baby, and a dog. They are obviously not of the same species, and science can prove that.

In the same way, science can prove that a human zygote is a member of homo sapiens- a living human being.

I’ll take a stab at the difference between a dog and a human being. What immediately comes to mind are:

a) The woman active in PETA, who responded to a question about lack of broad public support by saying that it took a while for the civil rights movement to gain broad public support too, and,

b) The two ladies I saw leafletting outside RFK Stadium in D.C., when a circus was performing, with animal rights leaflets saying “Slavery is Alive and Kicking.”

My thought was, at the time I was a child, although I wasn’t hanging out in bars, there were bars where a black man would be served, but charged an extra dollar, because the glass would be smashed in the bottom of the garbage can, so no “white” person would ever have to drink out of the same glass. That is, sort of the way I feel about eating out of a bowl that some careless, inconsiderate person has used to provide a dog with water.

So, what these people are really saying is, it wasn’t a problem that we used to treat Negroes like dogs, the real problem is that we still treat dogs like we used to treat Negroes?

That doesn’t fully answer your question, its just the beginning of a foundation. Now I am open to the possibility that we are truly wronging the dolphins, because they may indeed be as intelligent as we are, although lacking in opposable thumbs and therefore in technology. But that doesn’t mean I want one sitting in my living room. We are two different species. And dogs are nowhere close.

Dogs cannot build their own house, create a can of perfectly nutritionally balanced dog food, write a symphony, play an instrument, bake a loaf of bread, plant a garden… all of which are mere empirics, but they add up to a picture bigger than the sum of its parts. If they could do all those things, independently of people, I would accept them as a species equal to our own, and deserving respect as such, but of course I would not marry one — we are two distinct species. I wouldn’t marry a baby either, but that is because there are age-appropriate functions in human beings, and a baby is neither attractive nor appropriate for marriage.

I know there are people who think dogs are cute, who love them, who find them inseparable companions. But dogs depend on us, or perform functions we have trained them for, they are never going to be capable of being the masters of our environment on whom we depend for care and sustenance and provision.

Most people who equate dogs and babies would not care much that humanity is made in the image of God. To use the Hebrew concepts, every living organism has a nefesh, but only human beings have a nefesh chayyim, as in “then man became a living soul.” But I would make that distinction.

I’ll stop there for now. There may be some response you’ve been waiting to make once I commit myself to an answer to this question. Your response may be worth trying to follow up on. I’ll check back tomorrow.

Some people DO think there is no difference between a dog and a newborn baby. So how exactly would you explain to them that a dog is not a human being, but a newborn baby is? What arguments would you use?

Surely you would not use the emotional connection argument, which they could also use as well.

Think bigger. Then maybe you’ll get the point I’m trying to make.

It’s not a foolish analogy. Would it be foolish to ask someone who thinks newborns can be killed, whether they would be willing to also slit the throat of a 10 year old as well?

The ONLY difference between a newborn and a 10 year old is age of development.

The ONLY difference between a newly conceived embryo and a 10 year old is age of development.

You were not so homicidal in your analogy. I observed that I know from personal experience that a baby only a day or two after birth is self-aware, and you tried to compare that to staring into the eyes of a dog. Don’t you understand that dogs and human beings are two different things?

siarlys, that was the point. Sheesh. I am getting tired of explaining even the simplest of points to you when you pretend that you can’t even comprehend them.

I’ll try to explain it to you in simpler terms though.

You say:

1.) If I can look into it’s eyes and feel a connection, it’s a person
2.) Therefore, a newborn baby is a person

Is it not just as logical to conclude that
1.) If I can look into it’s eyes and feel a connection, it’s a person
2.) therefore, a dog is a person?

No, of course not! It makes no sense, and that was my point. Your story proves NOTHING.

And by the way, who are you to ask me whether I can’t tell the difference between a dog and a newborn?

You can’t even figure out what species a human zygote is! You refuse to call it a human being, even though it clearly is!

Your anecdotal story does NOTHING to scientifically prove the humanity of a newborn baby. THAT was my point.

Next time, try using something better than your FEELINGS…something like, you know, biology, for instance.)

You were not so homicidal in your analogy. I observed that I know from personal experience that a baby only a day or two after birth is self-aware, and you tried to compare that to staring into the eyes of a dog. Don’t you understand that dogs and human beings are two different things?

I’m probably not comprehending what you mean to say, but you are not expressing yourself in a very persuasive manner. I think it is because you jump on little details, rapidly, instead of taking time to think about it, and then offering a reasoned response.

I’m sorry, but this paragraph doesn’t even really make sense.

Where in the world did any pro-life person advocate killing 10 year olds? Where did I equate a dog and a baby?
I often wonder if you are comprehending the things I write, or just reading what you want to hear into it.

As far as biological basis, I’ve said many times, once all the basic organs required for a human body to function are present, it is a baby, and entitled to protection. I don’t recognize that a hollow tube with three little bumps and no nervous system fits that definition. Is that biological enough for you?

I’m really not trying to respond, point for point and tit for tat, to every little thing you might have said, nor do I suggest that you have a duty to respond to me on such a basis. For example, I was genuinely interested in what your reasons are for thinking God is not pleased by homosexual unions, since you hint that your reasons are different from what I’ve stated here, but if you don’t find it a priority to answer my question, so be it. My life will not be unduly infringed because I don’t have an answer.

Your shallow response to what I’ve posted on precisely what Roe v. Wade does and does not say, your continued wilful ignorance and refusal to come to terms with how law works, your continued reference to “Doe v. Bolton” when no ruling at all was issued under that case name, further convinces me that examining each statement you make can become a waste of time. If you took the time to STUDY the legal cases you refer to, as Gerard does when he expounds on biology, (or to study the context in a chapter of Biblical verses you mention), we would have something to talk about. We might still reach different conclusions, but at least our conversation would mean something.

One reason I passed over the question about holding a second trimester fetus in my arms is that you’ve raised that on other posts, and I’ve answered it. I’m not going to duplicate. I have other things to work on.