What’s Wrong with the World

Hold up a second: the pre-natal screening for spina bifida is in a different category from screening for chromosomal disorders. Spina bifida can actually be corrected by prenatal surgery. Testing for defects that can be corrected, either with existing techniques or with techniques that could be developed (on the grounds that eventually someone will get up the ingenuity and gumption to try to do so), is no different than testing for any condition in an adult. Until someone learns to reprogram chromosomes (actually a somewhat terrifying prospect apart from its potential to aid the disabled), I have to agree with your assessment vis-a-vis chromosomal screenings.

Titus, here's the thing (several things, actually): First, the medical profession has chosen to bundle spina bifida screening with screening for Down. This has happened within my lifetime and even within my child-bearing years. When I had my first child it was not the case; you could pick and choose your tests. Now, it's all bundled together--hence, the name "triple test." Second, prenatal surgery for spina bifida is a big deal, is not a widespread treatment, and most women will not have it. Nor is that just a matter of not caring enough about the child, nor even of cost and the difficulty of finding surgeons who can do it. Prenatal surgery carries increased risk of premature birth for the child, so there are legitimate questions as to whether it's better to wait to repair the defect after birth. Third, as a sociological matter, there are plenty of women who (perhaps under pressure from family or even from the medical profession) are more likely to abort a spina bifida child if they find out. Now, granted, spina bifida _can_ be diagnosed through an ultrasound, and you'll notice I'm not inveighing against ultrasounds. That's partly because a good ultrasound also has pro-life effects of bonding the mother to the child. But the triple test doesn't have any such bonding effects, and the diagnosis of spina bifida through it can definitely be causal in leading to aborting the child.

And certainly there are people and groups who mean to use such tests to "prevent" birth defects by preventing the birth of the defective.

Nice sentence.

How can pro-lifers work effectively to reduce government funding for the screening and reduce its acceptability in society?

This is a very difficult question, given the downward spiral of morality and medical ethics, coupled with rampant materialism, scientism, and the obsession with beauty.

It only took a little coaxing for people to abandon centuries of modern restraint that considered all life sacred (this was not always the case before then, however). How does one get societies or even people to realize that the Enlightenment wasn't so enlightened?

Ultimately, with medicine pushing more and more utilitarian criteria for judging quality of life (as if they had any right to do so, anyway) and with more and more of society willing to go along, I think the only was to stop it is by a radical change of heart among people. I doubt there will be a legislative way to stop funding of the triple test because it is not, in itself, morally impermissible. It is the people using the results who have a distorted moral viewpoint and it is this viewpoint that must be changed.

I am afraid that as long as people want their own way, apart from God, there is little hope. I would love to try an experiment. If all artificial contraception were strictly outlawed, so that the consequences of sex were no longer cheap, I would bet that babies in the womb would, in general, be more respected. I think that a lot of the problems in life issues can be traced back to the faulty mentality that argued for artificial contraception. No one has tried to stop that. Focusing on abortion or even pre-natal testing is too far downstream in the process, in my opinion.

The Chicken

Rats. I keep forgetting to close my blockquote.

The Chicken

I did not have the time to find the link when I was writing the post and hope to dig it up later. There are movements afoot in other countries (I believe that the link I have in mind was related to Canada) to get more women to have the triple test. I know that when I was pregnant with my last child, there were big signs all over the place about getting it. It isn't entirely a spontaneous, grassroots desire among women to have prenatal testing. There are definitely forces coming from the other side--and with increased government funding of healthcare these will increasingly be government forces--trying to advertise it and urge more people to get it.

One definite area of work is trying to make sure all states have what some states have: laws preventing wrongful birth suits. Wrongful birth suits have the effect of encouraging medical professionals to push for testing and for abortion.

I would also suggest something that I don't think anyone has suggested before: Some sort of tort protection laws at the state level that _expressly_ protect doctors from being sued for not offering prenatal testing. That is to say, even if the doctor says nothing, does not offer the testing, he cannot be sued.

I feel that it is pressure-y on women that with this one thing--the triple test--you have to sign a paper when you are pregnant that says that you refused it. You don't have to do that for other things. You don't have to do it for an ultrasound, for example (that I know of). It's a form specifically set up for this prenatal blood test--like it's a big, special, extra decision to _refuse_ it. I think this is not good, psychologically. It gives the woman the impression that the default setting is that she should have the test. Doctors should be encouraged to toss out those forms, but obviously, their lawyers tell them they have to have them.

"If all artificial contraception were strictly outlawed, so that the consequences of sex were no longer cheap, I would bet that babies in the womb would, in general, be more respected. I think that a lot of the problems in life issues can be traced back to the faulty mentality that argued for artificial contraception."

The Masked Chicken I'm not sure I agree, but I thought you may like this essay by Mary Eberstadt at First Things were she makes the case that in Christianity (and life in general) when people start to be more permissive, it eventually leads to the exceptance of things that would of been unthinkable in the past, and it leads to a rejection of many of the core tenants of Christianity (its essentially the Slippery Slope Argrument but she makes her points well.)

I think she makes the same pont as you on contraception.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/01/christianity-lite

I am afraid that as long as people want their own way, apart from God, there is little hope. I would love to try an experiment. If all artificial contraception were strictly outlawed, so that the consequences of sex were no longer cheap, I would bet that babies in the womb would, in general, be more respected. I think that a lot of the problems in life issues can be traced back to the faulty mentality that argued for artificial contraception. No one has tried to stop that. Focusing on abortion or even pre-natal testing is too far downstream in the process, in my opinion.

Nicely said, Chicken.

BTW, your posts seem to be showing quite a few glitches and typos recently... but I guess it's not too easy working a keyboard with only a beak.

Don't confuse Masked Chicken with Phantom Blogger, George. They're definitely different commentators.

No, those were the Chicken's words, Lydia -- and he makes a good point.

I just hope Bill Luse doesn't chew me out for my insensitive "beak" remark.

What is it he said that makes you think he got us confused?

If you want to reduce the number of abortions of special-needs babies, you should make it easier for parents to care for those kids. There is exactly one day care center in Austin, a city of 700,000 people, that takes autistic children. I know of two or three that take Down's kids, and they only accept kids with no serious medical problems. Home health services for disabled babies are nearly non-existent, and such as exist are supremely expensive. The only attention conservatives ever pay to services like this is to argue for funding cuts. If you really do believe that parents don't have the right to decide whether they can care for a disabled baby, you should provide as much support for those parents as humanly possible. Otherwise you're only advocating for mothers to suffer. (Fathers don't have to suffer; they can just leave with no consequences even from conservatives. See Newt Gingrich for an excellent example of how conservatives treat men who cheat and leave their wives.)

Before you start shouting about how much churches do for disabled kids, you should know that Austin has the Rosedale School as part of our public school system for children with multiple disabilities. It has one big fundraiser every year; a large organized bike ride and silent auction. So far as I know, not one single church or church organization has ever sponsored this event. The Buddhist group here in town does sponsor the ride, so there's clearly no rule prohibiting religious organizations. I really can't understand why the Catholic diocese here doesn't support Rosedale, since this school is a perfect example of their vaunted 'culture of life,' and since there are no Catholic schools in this area that serve kids with this level of disability.

Otherwise you're only advocating for mothers to suffer.

Um-huh. And that would also be true if we were killing them at age five, right? I mean, let's face it. The baby with Down syndrome is a lot more trouble after he's born than before. If murdering him is a solution to all the trouble he causes, and if the only way that someone has moral standing to argue against murdering him is if the person advocates more and more government programs to support people who are raising him, then that should be true after he's born, too. Gosh, we conservatives want to oppose "clinics" for killing six-month-old Down babies. We want to deny parents that choice. Shocking. Guess we need to support more government programs before we can do that. Oh, and bike rides for raising money, too. If church groups don't support those, then to heck with it. Build the baby-killing clinic, and we'd better not say "boo" about it.

you should make it easier for parents to care for those kids.

Let's separate out two distinct ideas: first, it is ALWAYS possible to avoid doing a gravely, intrinsically immoral act to a kid in order to avoid suffering (both his and mom's). So it is not like society's failure to help enough actually makes Mom and Dad kill their baby: what it does is give them an additional motivation beyond the root motivation that they are revolted by a little deformed baby instead of loving the child.

Second, society should indeed do more for disabled and their families. That has been true for thousands of years, and remains true. Still, society does much, much more now for some categories of disabled people than it ever did in the past - but it is surely possible to go much further. Nevertheless, no matter how much we help out, there will remain the underlying fact that the disability itself is a severe burden on both the child and the family, and no matter how much we do, (short of curing the disability, which at the moment we are unable to do), that suffering will be difficult. If difficulties and suffering were the theoretical grounds justifying euthanizing little Mary before her birth now, when society doesn't help enough, then it would remain a justification even when society helps out 10 times as much as now. And this we reject. It is no justification.

But if people would only have sex when they were married and wanted to open themselves to God's will for the possibility for children, and only made love when they had love both for each other and for the offspring which is the natural fruit of married love, then they would start the child's life right off the bat with the love that accepts the child that God sends - even if deformed. Perhaps we all fall short of the ideal at times, being imperfect humans. But killing a child with disabilities is a far cry from merely having an imperfect love for the child. While we all are sinners, there are some sins that everyone can avoid.

I just hope Bill Luse doesn't chew me out for my insensitive "beak" remark.

The only thing I can chew you out for is a weak joke. Choose a handle like Masked Chicken and you deserve pretty much what you get.

If you really do believe that parents don't have the right to decide whether they can care for a disabled baby...

You mean decide whether they want to kill it?

...you should provide as much support for those parents as humanly possible.

That's a threat: conservatives and Christians pay up or the children die. I hope you're not an official spokeswoman for Rosedale.

Lydia, I'm not going to answer the question you posed at the end of this post. I will, however, say three things. Yes, spina bifida can be corrected while the child is in utero. And, yes, the test for that is bundled together with Downs and several other things. Finally, I got strange looks with each of my pregnancies when I turned down or refused to do that testing.

The only thing I can chew you out for is a weak joke.

I'll have to plead guilty to that.

The only thing I can chew you out for is a weak joke. Choose a handle like Masked Chicken and you deserve pretty much what you get.

At least I get something.

As for the beak joke, I have made similar comments, myself, so no offense take. My only problem has been with forgetting to close blockquotes, but that is probably because I am so enamored of my own incredibly insightful comments that I forget to close the blockquotequote :-) or I have early-stage Alzheimer's Disease, or I'm just a chicken and well, what do you expect from a chicken? Isn't it miraculous enough that I can type? You want correct HTML, too?

The Chicken