A response to the many queries I’ve been receiving about this topic:
The technological genie is out of the bottle.
We live in the age of Molecular Biology, where diagnostics (including those for Down Syndrome) are becoming much more accurate, sensitive, and inexpensive. It’s a blessed thing to behold.
That may come as a surprise statement to many, but the truth of the matter is that diagnostic testing for Down Syndrome has great potential for good, especially the newer blood tests that can detect Down Syndrome earlier.
First, letting parents know much earlier takes from the more eugenic Ob/Gyn’s the leverage that comes with the more traditional (and later) amniocentesis. Women often receive those tests results within days to a couple of weeks of the legal limit for having an abortion. It doesn’t give the woman time to emotionally digest the diagnosis, leaving her vulnerable to coercive pressure from genetic counselors, doctors and family.
Next, the earlier blood tests allow more time for women to sit with their decision, and to seek out and receive alternative advice without the deadline for abortion looming large on the horizon. Contrary to arguments that say the abortion rate will skyrocket with such testing, as early term abortions are easier to have, one need only consider that research from Harvard University shows that 93% of all Ds babies diagnosed are being aborted; so there’s little margin for any skyrocketing of abortions.
The glass is half-full here.
By itself, the technology is morally neutral. This technology can alert an Obstetrician to the need for more sonograms and the need for bringing onboard a perinatologist. Some Ds babies have anomalies that require immediate surgical intervention at birth. Early diagnostics can help to determine whether the birth should be vaginal or C-section, and whether or not a surgical team needs to be on standby.
Early diagnostics can help the parents emotionally come to terms with the reality of their child’s needs, and the unanticipated trajectory those needs will put the parents’ lives onto; all of which is critical for bonding.
Receiving a diagnosis of Down Syndrome is akin to the same reception of a diagnosis of autism. It’s like a small, tactical nuclear warhead exploding amidst the landscape of joyful reveries about our children and our hope for their futures. I was devastated by all of Joseph’s diagnoses, and would never want to repeat that experience.
Knowing the devastation that often comes with such diagnoses is key to helping parents through that difficult time, and the earlier the diagnosis, the more time we have to help them.
With so much potential good that can come from this technology (and so little room for matters to get worse), it is unwise, even counterproductive to fight against it. Science has actually given us a buffer zone.
We need to exploit it.
My son was born 7 weeks ago and diagnosed with Down syndrome at birth. We have a daughter who is chromosomally normal. For our next baby we will probably get the materniti21 test, not because we’d abort (never!) but because we lucked out that Daniel was so very healthy with virtually none of the health risks of DS currently. His birth could have gone very differently and I know we could have lost him if he had had more severe defects we were unaware of. I agree this technology is not a bad thing and as a pro-life Catholic I fully intend to use it.
After reading this post once, then twice–three times, I remain unconvinced, and skeptical. We want to control, to have control–over everything, including the future. Our son born with Down Syndrome had many other issues–imperforate anus (no sphincter), heart development issues and others. The diagnosis shortly after birth was indeed “devastating,” but proved to be the beginning of a remarkable journey that I would hope others could experienceoot continues today 16 years later.
Here’s the downside…more women/couples will logically choose to take the non-invasive blood test (versus an amnio)…again, logically leading to…more abortions.
I get the “we’d like time to absorb” argument–emotional level–but reject it. Extending the argument, do we REALLY want to need to know what sort of person our child is gpoing to be? Many would…control.
Perhaps the most persuasive argument is the medical one, there could be additional medical experts/facilities/equipment standing by. Our doctors told us that this was/is a non-issue in the vast majority of American hospitals.
The best advice we can offer is an ultra-sound, which will cover most (though not all) major physical issues, and then trust and accept. Fight this? I think there are good reasons…but they are not at the top of my list. Thanks Doc, good discussion.
Elicia,
My best wishes for you and your son. It seems that he arrived in very good and loving hands.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Chuck. God Bless.
[...] from his readers about early genetic prenatal testing from a simple maternal blood sample, he wrote this: We live in the age of Molecular Biology, where diagnostics (including those for Down Syndrome) are [...]
[...] Coming Home, Dr. Gerard Nadal notes the good that could result from more “accurate, sensitive, and [...]
[...] Coming Home, Dr. Gerard Nadal notes the good that could result from more “accurate, sensitive, and [...]
[...] Coming Home, Dr. Gerard Nadal notes the good that could result from more “accurate, sensitive, and [...]
I agree that earlier diagnosis is much better for all involved. It certainly will allow for the easy decision to abort if that is what the woman wants. This is beautiful thing. As technology progresses, it will empower women to make the correct choice for them.
Jake, you summed up the selfish attitude of pro-death advocates perfectly! ‘What the woman wants’. Who cares about the unborn baby! As long as ‘it’ doesn’t inconvenience the woman!
Jake, what if the husband, the father of the baby does not wish to abort? Does he get a say?
I have a degree in Special Education and have worked with many kids and adults with Downs. They can be some of the most wonderful people in the world, true gems of humanity.
However, those I met were in institutions, even though they were pretty high functioning. This points to the reality that a Downs diagnosis can indeed be a nuclear bomb, a bomb that some families simply can not survive.
In such circumstances, it’s arrogant in the extreme to assume that we know what is best for children and families we have never met and know nothing about. There are an infinite number of ways the story can go, some are wonderful stories, and some are truly tragic for all concerned.
Information is great, the more the better, the sooner the better. Even if parents wish to keep the child, they need every minute they can get to prepare for a challenge of this magnitude.
“Even IF parents wish to keep the child…” talk about burying the lead. Also, “Nuclear Bomb” that “some families cannot survive…” Really? You mean the kids with Downs, most of whom are destroyed when their chromosonal ID is revealed, don’t you? This whole idea of a special preparation for a kid with Downs–or even a typical child–is, how did you put it…”arrogant to the extreme.”
Chuck,
Life is often not as simple as taking a purist ideological position and then we’re done.
Yes Chuck, some families do not survive special needs kids. A special needs kid can be like having ten new kids all at once. Some families can meet that challenge, and some can not.
When they can not, it can lead to divorce, financial ruin, and existing kids whose lives are thrown in to chaos. Sometimes parents bail out and run, never to be seen again. Sometimes the state winds up raising the kids that already exist.
There’s more to it than standing in judgment over situations we know nothing about.
Oh yes, I forgot, you have a degree in Special Education. My bad. Forgive me for “standing in judgment.” Look Phil, agreed…this can be difficult–chaotic, disriptive, financially ruinous, etc., didn’t say otherwise. So, what is YOUR solution? Destroy the child? There’s nothing “purist ideological” about my “position.” Yes, my “position” is simple…but not easy.
Ideological purist vs. the moral realists / relativist…. a battle of the ages. Every generation wages such wars. For example, we’re all “weather relativists” now, but in the days when Zeus ruled the skies… Phil, Chuck, you’re both right. To properly guide the life choices that Phil suggests defy black-and-white reductionism, one must always weigh the value and the quality of life. Ultimately I agree more with the relativist, but believe the ideological purist (you know who you are, Chuck) should never be lost in time. We’ll need your type always. Value of / quality of life… these are not incompatible terms.
Hi again Chuck,
Like everybody else, I don’t have a perfect solution. I especially don’t have a perfect solution for situations and families I know nothing about.
The best I can suggest is that the decision should rest with those who do know the situation of that particular case, who do understand what best serves all concerned, and who will have to live with whatever decision is made.
Like you, I hope that a way will be found to bring the child in to the world and love it. And that often is the case, and it can be a wonderful joyous event that enhances the entire family.
Ideological purist? I must admit, that gave me a hearty guffaw. My wife too. I prefer pure ideological realist…with a strong dose of daily (hourly?) imperfection thrown in. There cannot be any room for the big questions–like the life or death of another, no matter how Imperfect–Downs, etc., even if it does not appear to be devoid of joy or an enhancement of the family It’s the execution where reality comes in.
So genetic testing is a good thing? The fact is the new blood tests aim to test ALL mothers, not just older mothers that have a higher probability of having a child with Down syndrome. So younger mothers that were not tested with the invasive technology will now be tested, and since younger women have more babies, there will be more abortions in absolute terms, as well the percentage per pregnancy. ANY TEST to screen for genetic differences will, in a culture that approves of abortions for essentially for any and all reasons, will of course result in more, and essentially, automatic abortions. Persons with Down syndrome are the first target, but these tests will be developed for a host of other genetic and non-genetic differences, and could result in many more abortions. This is nothing but eugenics in action! If only the Third Reich could have had this technology! The only ethical pre-born screening is tests that give doctors information that can be used to perform in-utero procedures to save the life of a mother or baby, or correct some medical condition. No one should have a TEST to be born – no one. Don’t play God with the right of someone to exist. Even if you don’t believe in God, one may argue that people born with Down syndrome play an important role in human ecology; otherwise nature would take them via spontaneous abortions. People with Down syndrome are very creative, loving, and joyful people, who learn, get married, have jobs, and have the highest human qualities. Only the barbaric majority of so-called normal people want to test them out of existence!
We might consider Catholic just war doctrine (paragraph 2309 of the Catechism). The Church recognizes that as horrible as war is, there are options which are worse. In such circumstances, the Church sanctions the deliberate killing of huge numbers of people who had nothing to do with starting the war.
As we can see, this is not a simple purist “right to life” position, but instead a complex policy containing much room for discussion and debate.
We might consider the Church doctrine regarding contraception, which if implemented across the society would be guaranteed to substantially increase abortions. In this case, the Church prioritizes an arguably unnecessary purist policy position over the lives of unborn babies.
The point here is that abortion is not a simple issue, but a very complicated one. It’s so complicated that the Church itself has been unable to come up with a clear consistent coherent policy regarding abortion and the taking of human life.
I sincerely agree with Ellen that it’s valuable that the purist position on abortion be part of the conversation.
But we should all be wary of pounding the table insistently, adamantly certain that we and we alone are morally superior to everyone with any other view.
If the Church itself is confused on these issues, we have a right to be too. And if we admit our confusion, we become more humble, more thoughtful, more united, and thus more successful at reaching the goals we all share.
Yes, I must admit I am confused. I checked my Catechism and the text says nothing about “the Church sanctions the deliberate killing of huge numbers of people who had nothing to do with starting the war.” I do see a statement that says: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”
On abortion, I am not confused. It IS simple, but most definately not easy, and yes, complicated by our broken desire for…me! me! me!. The same can be said for contraception. Church teaching is not confusing, but clear and concise. I might suggest others are confused…but perhaps that would be “not humble?” IDK.
Wait, I’m back to confused now…I fail to see the “morally superior” acts of “table pounding,” but rather the loving, compassionate and guiding hand of Christ through His Church teaching us the way to bring ourselves and others to heaven. Must have missed that post.
Chuck,
We agree the Church permits war in some limited cases.
Everybody including the Church knows that wars, including just wars, result in the mass killing of innocents. Only a tiny number of those killed in any war had anything to do with starting the war. Often the soldiers themselves have no choice about participating.
This policy demonstrates the Church being wise, and using it’s judgment to holistically consider the complexity surrounding a particular war, weighing all the facts of that specific situation, instead of issuing a simplistic formula that is supposed to apply in every case.
We might recall that simplistic formulas can be used to serve “me, me, me” too. Simplistic formulas are great for building certainty, and certainty is an open invitation to finger pointing judgments and adamant sign waving proclamations of superiority, a very intoxicating human weakness.
This can be as true for “right to choicers” as it is for “right to lifers”. All of us are human, and none of us are immune.
“…certainty is an open invitation to finger pointing judgments and adamant sign waving proclamations of superiority, a very intoxicating human weakness.”
Looks like we will need to agree to disagree, particularly on the certainty and Truth of Mother Church’s Teaching.
Which Truth Chuck? Which teachings? Those that permit the killing of innocents, or those that prohibit the killing of innocents?
Take your pick, Mr. Moral Relativist.
Is the Church a moral relativist if it doesn’t provide a single simple consistent black and white answer as to what our position should be in regards to any specific war?
Is the Church a moral relativist if it wants to consider each war on a case by case basis?
I respectfully submit that the true source of our debate is not an argument between you and me personally, or between choice advocates and right to lifers in general, but an unresolved argument Church doctrine is having with itself.
In one case Church doctrine says taking the life of an innocent is absolutely wrong in every instance, in another case Church doctrine says the organized mass slaughter of innocents is acceptable in some situations.
If some people are confused, perhaps it’s not entirely their fault.
I keep looking for this “organized mass slaughter of innocents” text in the Catechism. BTW, you forgot about the exception for Capital Punishment. Equating the Just War Theory with abortion is, I would respectfully submit, a willfully incorrect reading and understanding of what the Church teaches and gives unsubstantiated “cover” (i.e., an excuse) to pro-abortion/pro-contraception believers.
Hi again Chuck,
Let me pause here to thank you for this conversation. You’re a durable fellow, and I respect that. Really, I do.
The “organzied mass slaughter of innocents” is pretty much the definition of war Chuck. When we approve a war to a significant degree that’s what we’re approving.
This is often the case even for the solidiers. As example, were we to go to war with any dictatorship, the most likely scenario, the solidiers on the other side would have probably been drafted in to the army against their will, and thus can be considered innocent.
The fact that this specific phrase doesn’t appear in the Catechism is irrelevant, as the Church knows very well what a war is, as we all do.
You’ve not demonstrated why just war doctrine and abortion doctrine are consistent with each other. Characterizing an argument is not defeating an argument.
Also, we don’t disagree quite as much as it may appear. As example, I would support significant burdens being placed upon those seeking abortions. I agree with you that the taking of a life is serious business indeed, and that it shouldn’t be a casual option.
I’m just not willing to go so far as to make simple blanket statements about millions of situations I know nothing about, just as the Church is not when it comes to war.
“I’m just not willing to go so far as to make simple blanket statements about millions of situations I know nothing about.” — Phil
This is a good “last word” on the subject. But, Phil, think of the power you could command at your keyboard, the self-righteous thrill pulsating through your being with every beat of your heart, if you just leg a few simple blanket statements go….