M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
We opted out as well with each baby. Saw no point for us. I can Blueeyedlady’s point about knowing for preparatory reasons, but no one has to take the test.
- Status
A
Allegra
Guest
There is more than one test. The genetic test is very accurate, but it requires removing fluid from them baby. Many parents who intend to keep the baby don’t want this test because it is dangerous to the baby. There are also several screening tests that aren’t at all conclusive. but are part of standard pre-natal tests. Most of them can indicate many things other than Downs.
A
Allegra
Guest
The largest challenges of raising a child with Downs don’t generally occur during early infancy. There’s plenty of time to make changes after the child is born, if necessary. Besides that, how do think the interview for that higher paying job will go when you show up 24 weeks pregnant? And if you had that opportunity available in the first place, why didn’t you take it when you assumed you were having a typical baby? Do parents frequently say, “Well, I didn’t mind being poor when I thought my baby was typical, but since my kid is special needs, I’m suddenly more ambitious!” If anything, it seems more likely to me that a parent would accept a lower paying job with more flexibility.Personally, I would rather plan for income, support, and resources that I don’t need than not plan and have my world turned upside down the day I become a mother.
A
ArielRussu
Guest
Some people want to know if there is something wrong with there child so they can prepare themselves both mentally and physically for the challenges coming when the baby is born, either that or abort. Even if the results are incorrect, at least in my opinion as I am a planner and hate surprises and feeling unprepared if I can help it, it is better to worry yourself over nothing than be unaware and then get slammed when the child’s born (depending on the diagnosis). At least for certain diseases there are ways to test/diagnose prenatally, instead of after the child’s born like with others.
B
BlueEyedLady
Guest
I was actually thinking more in terms of the father’s job. Just as an example, my husband recently made a big career switch from public accounting to IT management and development. He’s happy where he is and wants this job on his resume for 2 years before either striking out on his own or finding something better, since it’s such a huge switch. But if we found out that we had a special needs child on the way, or triplets, or I got very sick, or any other number of circumstances arose, he would definitely be looking for something that might better meet our needs (just as I would if circumstances called for it). It’s not really a matter of ‘motivated’ so much as needing a change of plans.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
It occurs to me that weather forecasts aren’t 100% accurate either, but would anyone recommend they ignore weather forecasts so they won’t be worried, and just wait until a hurricane, tornado, or blizzard is at your door? By that time, it’s way too late to make any preparations.
I realize the “better to be prepared” argument at times is just a way to push people into getting tested. And certainly, one can argue that the risk of a bad outcome from an invasive test such as amniocentesis is not worth it to get that information, since there is no risk to someone from listening to a weather forecast.
However, a prenatal ultrasound has very low risk, and is NOT done simply to find out a baby’s sex, it is considered part of prenatal screening. I’m not even sure there’s any risk, but I have heard of some expectant mothers refusing them out of fear there might be some risk discovered in the future.
I think this issue really shows how important it is for women (and anyone, really) to find medical providers who they can trust to at least respect their beliefs; I realize this can be easier said than done in certain areas where doctors are scarce, or for those who have insurance plans that limit physicians to those “in-network”.
I realize the “better to be prepared” argument at times is just a way to push people into getting tested. And certainly, one can argue that the risk of a bad outcome from an invasive test such as amniocentesis is not worth it to get that information, since there is no risk to someone from listening to a weather forecast.
However, a prenatal ultrasound has very low risk, and is NOT done simply to find out a baby’s sex, it is considered part of prenatal screening. I’m not even sure there’s any risk, but I have heard of some expectant mothers refusing them out of fear there might be some risk discovered in the future.
I think this issue really shows how important it is for women (and anyone, really) to find medical providers who they can trust to at least respect their beliefs; I realize this can be easier said than done in certain areas where doctors are scarce, or for those who have insurance plans that limit physicians to those “in-network”.
P
pensmama87
Guest
The reason I decline early scans is because it’s annoying to schedule yet another appointment and deal with either having the kids there or arranging childcare, and because early scans are transvaginal which is super uncomfortable. If I knew I was particularly higher risk for something that could be treated in utero or if I was in danger of miscarrying, then yes, I’d probably go for it. But routine? No way. I get the regular anatomical scan at 20 weeks and that’s plenty.
And yes, after the geneticist expressed frustration with me that I hadn’t had early scans so that “something could have been done” about my third baby, who is totally fine, by the way, I am now even more firm that I will not do early scans. My regular care providers are completely fine with that.
A
Allegra
Guest
The early transvaginal scans don’t pick up much more than a sac and a heartbeat anyway. They wouldn’t show Downs. I think certain proteins in the urine might be an indicator that they look for though. I don’t mind having the early scans myself. I’m comforted to know that the baby is positioned correctly and has a good heartbeat.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
I totally understand that line of reasoning, and for all the talk of doctors hounding women into getting screened and getting abortions, so far we have two posters, both you and E_7 stating that your own providers understood and respected your decisions not to screen.
However, I do get the feeling that some Catholics actually see prenatal screening itself as somehow sinful, the same way many see taking a “birth control pill” as inherently sinful even if it’s taken to treat a medical condition. I also get a feeling that some are actually afraid that if they get a positive screening result, they will actually be tempted to have an abortion, and therefore see screening as a near occasion of sin best avoided.
(After all, even Sarah Palin admitted she was tempted, though obviously she didn’t succumb to the temptation. And yes, I know Palin is not exactly a trustworthy source about a lot of things, but I do tend to believe that, that admission didn’t really score her political points. It certainly didn’t woo the pro-lifers, and the pro-choice response was to accuse her of hypocrisy because she was judging women who had abortions and not being compassionate about a choice she was tempted to make herself.)
P
pensmama87
Guest
Do scans pick up heartbeats earlier than Doppler? I’ve always had first appointments around 10 weeks or so and they’ve been able to pick up a heartbeat (though not until 12 is normal, I guess). The heartbeat is also the pregnancy confirmation - I’ve never had a urine test while pregnant (though I do the GBS test in the third trimester). I’m not turning them down, my provider just doesn’t do them unless requested or high risk.
I’m always surprised how much more testing and how many more appointments some moms do than has been typical for my pregnancies. If my provider doesn’t see a reason to do something I skip it.
I felt really hassled doing three ultrasounds in my last pregnancy and it required a lot of schedule juggling - and I stay at home! 
Meanwhile my SIL had an ultrasound and urine and blood work at every prenatal appointment, which she had a lot more frequently than I did.I just really dislike being poked and prodded.
P
pensmama87
Guest
Some people are also worriers. I’m a planner, but I know I can also let my planning turn into worrying, which is not productive and not helpful. There have been amazing advancements in prenatal surgery and treatment, but mostly, a diagnosis means you just have to wait and see (or abort). That kind of thing would kill me, though I don’t think I would be tempted to abort.
I like the regular scan (and we always find out the sex so that’s the real fun of it for me), but I don’t see the point of routine early ones, at least not for people like me.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
It’s been a while since I was pregnant.
With my last baby who was born when I was almost 40, I had sonograms throughout. I didn’t have any blood screenings because at the time my OB/GYN said that those tests were not very precise and had a high level of false positives. He said the level 2 sonogram would reveal anything he might want to do further testing on
I had the level 2 sonogram, baby was fine. I didn’t do an amnio.
Baby was born at 28 weeks. That was due to placental issues, that I had been monitoring most of the pregnancy. Nothing to do with my age
No chromosomal abnormalities were present.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
This is what the Church teaches regarding prenatal screening:
The Catholics who feel it is sinful are not correct. It is different than refusing a test. I didn’t want an amnio because the baby looked fine via sonogram, and I didn’t want the extra risk associated with the procedure.
Another woman might chose all the tests in order to prepare for a baby with special needs. Her decision would not be at all sinful.
What would be sinful is testing to see if the baby had some malformation in order to abort the baby.
A
Allegra
Guest
I have sufficient resources in my life that I am able to seek out a prolife OBGYN practice, so that wasn’t a problem for me. Poor, single mothers and women who live in rural communities don’t always have as many options. I’ve never heard middle class white women tell me that they were pressured to have an abortion, even when they were dealing with a diagnosis. The pressure was applied to a friend and family member who were poor and single. I did receive a monthly reminder from my insurance company to get extra screenings so I could have an abortion if I didn’t like the results, which was pretty obnoxious.
A
Allegra
Guest
Yes. My doctor picked up a heartbeat at just two weeks. Doppler couldn’t hear it, but he could see the flash on the scan. Because of my low progesterone, it’s really important to detect pregnancy as early as possible to avoid a miscarriage. I have more than typical scans and tests because of my progesterone issues.Do scans pick up heartbeats earlier than Doppler? I’ve always had first appointments around 10 weeks or so and they’ve been able to pick up a heartbeat (though not until 12 is normal, I guess). The heartbeat is also the pregnancy confirmation - I’ve never had a urine test while pregnant (though I do the GBS test in the third trimester). I’m not turning them down, my provider just doesn’t do them unless requested or high risk.
I’m always surprised how much more testing and how many more appointments some moms do than has been typical for my pregnancies. If my provider doesn’t see a reason to do something I skip it.
I just really dislike being poked and prodded.
T
ToeInTheWater
Guest
Well, I have. Though to be fair, I didn’t ask these women for proof of income. But they seemed fairly well off by the way they dressed. I also assume the doctor’s sister, also pressured to abort, was at least middle-class. Though I guess just because the doctor was “at least middle-class” himself, that doesn’t mean he came from such a background, and the sister might have been less financially stable. She definitely was married, though.
However, I do believe that pressure to abort probably is more common when mothers are poor and/or single. I can see how providers of care to low-income people might get pressure to “contain costs” and obviously insurance companies have a financial motivation to encourage the abortion of disabled babies.
One reason I find many “pro-choice” advocates to be disingenuous, is that they get very defensive about the idea that women being pressured or coerced into abortion is actually a legitimate issue, and that a “pro-choicer” should be just as outraged about women being pressured into having abortions, as they are about women being pressured into NOT having them.
Especially since some essentially think any action taken with the aim of persuading women not to abort, such as helping to pay for baby items, is “coercion”. I actually recall a story about a pro-life group giving out gift cards to BabysRUs, and being accused of “bribing women not to have abortions”.
But then, of course, they turn right around and accuse pro-life groups of not actually doing anything to address the underlying reasons women seek abortion.
P
pensmama87
Guest
Some of it, too, may have to do with perceived ability to pressure. White middle-class women are probably more likely to have opinions about medicine and make them known to their healthcare providers. People who are poor or don’t speak the language of their provider may be easier to persuade to go along to get along (or at least the medical staff working with them think so.) And while I still don’t think I would ever consent to abort regardless of circumstances, I was definitely much easier to push around with my first kid because it was the first time I’d ever substantially interacted with the medical establishment and it was intimidating. I didn’t really want to say “no” and be “that patient.” Thankfully, most of them were very good and I didn’t run into any wackos.
S
St_Pancake
Guest
We had our last child over 15 years ago when my wife and I were both 40 years old. A few years earlier, we had a friend, also over 40 that lost all of her amniotic fluid after the needle was inserted to remove fluid. That test ended up being the end for that child so when we were having a child that late, we skipped that test.
Regardless of how intelligent a doctor is, there is no way you can teach a poor communicator or one with a poor personality to become a better communicator or have a personality. Most my interactions with doctors, particularly obgyn types, has caused more stress than relieved. Our last pregnancy wasn’t going to end in a medical abortion regardless of the condition of the child. We weren’t shy about refusing tests. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t Catholic then so that can’t be chalked up to being a Catholic afraid of tests. Maybe a Baptist that felt the tests caused more concern and stress than they relieved.
Regardless of how intelligent a doctor is, there is no way you can teach a poor communicator or one with a poor personality to become a better communicator or have a personality. Most my interactions with doctors, particularly obgyn types, has caused more stress than relieved. Our last pregnancy wasn’t going to end in a medical abortion regardless of the condition of the child. We weren’t shy about refusing tests. For what it’s worth, I wasn’t Catholic then so that can’t be chalked up to being a Catholic afraid of tests. Maybe a Baptist that felt the tests caused more concern and stress than they relieved.
R
RPRPsych
Guest
Your points are absolutely valid.
All I meant (and I elaborated on this in my other posts) is that Facebook is the wrong vehicle for this, because:(a) Facebook is, to put it mildly, a wretched hive of evil. Remember when a professional sportsman (I forget who) posted something about his child, and was flooded with vile and ugly sexual comments? Do we want this child exposed to such things?
(b) Call me old-fashioned / traditional, but somehow, I don’t find the modern culture of “name / blame / shame” admirable. It is a secular, not a Catholic, view. It only serves to harden people in their positions, as Saint Peter Canisius said. Besides, human life and the pro-life movement gain true value only with reference to the Author of human life. Without Him, we’re just tossing opinions around. Number of references to God in that Facebook post? Zero. (unless Yahoo censored them, in which case I apologize and retract this point.
)(c) There are terrific pro-life ministries (Catholic, Protestant, even secular) which would have been a more legitimate channel for this post.
As someone who has lost a child pre-birth to a genetic anomaly, and who works on a daily basis with adults with such disabilities (including helping them to extract disability benefits from a tight-fisted socialist government), I assure you I am on the same side and in the same boat as you. I just disagree with the use of Facebook as a “public shaming” tool, and I think this woman’s actions in defying the doctor’s craven instructions and immoral behaviour are laudable.
- Status