Often in life the things that seem to be the worst possible scenario end up becoming or causing the happiest aspects of our lives.

I've spoken with parents of downs babies who said the initial shock was upsetting, but that they wouldn't change a thing after experiencing the love and joy inherent in downs kids' personalities. Reading obituaries of people with downs syndrome paints a similar picture--it wasn't what parents planned for but they're grateful for the surprise in the end. Certainly not everyone feels this way, but I believe it is not necessarily religious pressure that prevents people from aborting a disabled fetus.

Of course, there are conditions far more debilitating than downs syndrome that might be less rewarding. From our perspective we may claim there is no way such a family could be happy, but we can't understand what it's like to love and care for a disabled child. What we view to be a crushing burden may well be counted a blessing by the people 'enduring' it.

(The book Stumbling on Happiness addresses this idea--I recommend it highly.)

This will be a quickly written stream of thought so forgive me if a bit disjointed. I am at work but compelled to respond.

You have really caused a debate in my house, because I actually ascribe to the issue that you postulate and Marina does not. Her thoughts are practically the same as her brother's above. I believe that religion is the limiting factor to many families NOT aborting children who will be born with defects, genetic or otherwise; and I believe it makes logical, as well as moral sense, to abort such a fetus and not cast a new burden upon the family, society, or bring suffering to the child which would be born into that life.

Religion generally tells society that the fetus is a life that should not be destroyed, but as you have pointed out so many times in the past, many conceptions end in spontaneous abortion-- yet that is considered normal in religious circles. God's will, if you listen to the apologists.

I think it is wrong to personalize this too much. Wrong to say-- I knew a downs child, person, adult, the family, etc. Because then we are talking about placing a value on a human being. Valuing their life as so they should have been aborted, etc. That is not the issue. The issue is not what joy or pain is already in the world. The issue is the subjecting someone else to those trials, pains, diabliities, etc. It is an issue about not allowing a new life to suffer, become a burden to society, family, etc. Not about someone who is here living with those conditions now.

Of course this is a choice between the mother and father, or maybe even just the mother, if you want to go that far, but for now religion in America will reject the idea propogated in your piece. But I think it is a legitimate argument for discussion and consideration.

As a lawyer, however, I think of the legal issues this brings. What if the mother does not want to abort the fetus and the father does? Seems simple enough, unless the couple is not married or is going through a divorce, etc. When the additional medical and schooling costs are incurred, can the father claim limited or no financial responsibility because he wanted to abort the fetus as soon as the disability was known? Medical and legal ethicists would have a field day discussing this problem.

I do notice however, that the other primate society (monkeys) that visit my neighborhood have similar issues raised, that they too have to deal with. There is one monkey in the group that has half a arm and half a leg, apparently from injuries earlier in its life. He moves with the pack, rather slowing, but remains part of the larger group. There is another that is blind in one eye-- maybe the eye is even missing-- but he is otherwise normal. He too is still a noticable member of the clan. So they were integrated. Much the same as we to integrate disabled people into our own societies, the monkeys have done the same. What we do not see are deformed babies, etc. Where are they? Do they die naturally at birth since there are no hospitals to keep them alive until they are strong enough to withstand the elements, etc.? Do the parents abandon them to die? Abortion does not seem to be an option for the monkey community, but more harsh realities are there.

I am not trying to over simplify this issue. We are different because we have the ability to reason, make moral decisions, etc., but there are clearly crossing points where the benefit of society and not causing additional suffering cross with the decision to give birth or abort a fetus.

It's Paul K, Lisa

You outfoxed me Paul M; I thought sure it was Paul K relating to his experiences raising a disabled daughter.
I think Tom’s monkey observations hold up through out the animal kingdom. I have observed many species of animals that push the deformed baby from the nest. It appears in fact, the mother makes the decision based on several factors : deformed fetus, a weak baby, color patterns that are not desirable and often just because there are too many in the litter. If you consider the fact that even in us “higher evolutes” we have records of the same behavior. We don’t like to admit it, but it occurs in humans for the same reasons.
You may reject that last statement as being hyperbolic, but I have heard such confessions from the flock. Is that shocking? No, I think it is a normal response. When a parent or couple decide to raise a child that will require extensive family resources, it reflects higher moral values.

…know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good. (D&C 122:7)
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; (Hebrews 5:8)
The idea that one must suffer to grow is ubiquitous in religious teachings. It is an easy concept to accept because it seems so logical.
I have about come to the conclusion that, although seeming logical, it is not fact. It is a religious crutch to explain why God condones suffering of the righteous.
I proclaim that I have learned much information by cognitive thought. It is the old adage that if you understand history, you don’t have to repeat it. All primates have an innate fear of snakes, This is not a personally learned fear; it is a genetic protective device from the distant past. Now consider the Judeo-Christian concept of the devil as a serpent. We don’t have to experience an actual encounter with the devil to know that he is Perdition.
From a religious standpoint it is very difficult to explain why bad things happen to good people; hence - my son all these things are for thy own good!
I can no longer accept that explanation.
Once we acquire knowledge, all events can be explained from a statistical standpoint.
I have never been bitten by a snake, but my hackles will bristle when I smell one.
The point that seems evident is that knowledge comes to the thinker and not just to the victim.