Trisomy 18 and Mr. Santorum.

[Warren Stupidity]

Santorum's daughter, born in 2008 to his 48 year old wife has Trisomy 18, a genetic disorder that is 90% fatal in the first year of life. This condition is routinely detected during prenatal care, and given the severe problems that carrying such a child to term will suffer, and the almost certain early death of the infant preceded by medical crisis after medical crisis, many people choose to terminate such a pregnancy. A 48 year old women is at high risk for this and other similar problems during pregnancy, both for herself and her child.

While I respect the Santorum's choice in this matter, the fact that they decided to have a late pregnancy like this knowing that such pregnancies are high risk and that they would, for religious reasons, not allow themselves to choose otherwise, and that they would deny all other people in this country that choice, is hugely problematic to me, both their choices as individuals and their political position on abortion rights.

How dare they? That child will know nothing but suffering for its brief unfortunate life. And they would inflict this choice on all of us?

[undeterred]

1. How dare they?

Excuse me, but being pro-choice means supporting people in whatever choice they make, whether that is to carry a child to full term or to abort it. By choosing to have this child they have simply accepted the results of that pregnancy- to have that child and love that child till its natural death. People have done this for centuries.

On a political level, others should be allowed to make a different choice. But just because others may choose not to carry a baby with a genetic defect to term doesn't mean everyone has to. This is a very personal area of decision and that is why it deserves as much freedom of choice as possile. I don't think that life, however short, is inflicted on anyone.

[Bluerthanblue]

6. exactly. "Choice" is just that.

We may or may not agree with the ones that others make, but if we truly ARE "pro-choice" we can't condemn them for their choices.

The fact that Santorum doesn't honor the right of people to have a choice, shouldn't change 'our' response, which should be that it's a private, personal decision.

[izquierdista]

8. How dare they...inflict their choice on everyone else?

I think the "while I respect Santorum's choice in the matter" in the OP makes it clear that the indignation is in their wanting to mandate their decision on all others in a similar situation. And yes, how dare they. They should make their choice and then STFU unless someone asks for their advice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. No, it's clear that it's about their personal choice too

That's why it says "that choice, is hugely problematic to me, both their choices as individuals ..." and "that child will know nothing but suffering for its brief unfortunate life". The 'how dare they' precedes "that child". The OP is contradictory; it claims to "respect Santorum's choice" while criticising it.

[hyphenate]

29. I can't look at this all from a political level

I know what it's like to have a handicapped child/adult in their family that consumes both attention and lives. So I can say that while the toll is great on parents who bring such a child into the world, it's greater on that child. In this case, willfully bringing a child with such handicaps into this world is worse than "murder," it's 1st degree murder. It is also arrogant to think, that "they" will be the "one" who manages to keep that child alive, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and be the exception.

An abortion would be kinder, more compassionate, and bring a lot less pain to someone born with such massive odds against them. It's one of the reasons that tests were created and implemented to cut short problematic pregnancies that involve the health of the mother, that a child won't face incredible odds, and that assure a child is born with a chance to survive a longer life.

Deliberately going into a pregnancy such as this, a later life pregnancy, a child with severe physical and mental conditions, to a mother who has already dealt with pregnancy problems, knowing that the child was not going to be normal in any sense of the word was pure malice aforethought. Did they think they would have a better chance in politics when people would feel sorry for them because they had a handicapped child? In that same vein, how many people felt sorry for Palin, with her Down Syndrome baby and voted for her because of it?

We live in a very awkward society. People make choices from a purely emotional base, and logic or reason has nothing to do with their decisions. Why? A part of it relates to how we are raised, and the environment we lived in. There are more people raised in dysfunctional homes than raised with a strong set of ethics and reason. Money and power have become more popular than respect as a goal in life, and as a result, people will do anything they can to get them. Having a built in "sympathy" factor goes a long way in society, and thus there is a silent code of "look at me, I'm putting up with a terrible problem in my life!"

Yes, there a lot of people who have a burden in their lives--actually most of us. But we don't go around looking for pity or make a huge deal over such circumstances. We cope. We HAVE to cope, because we don't really have any choice than to cope. If people go willfully into such circumstances when there was a decision to be made that could have prevented it in the first place, they are patently looking forward to "using" that problem to enhance their esteem and show how worthy they are of making such a "sacrifice."

This is how I look at it, IMHO. How else can we look at the Santorum family, when they make such a big deal out of taking a stillborn infant home and treating it as they did? Heart on their sleeve? More like Addams Family creepiness to me.

[elehhhhna]

41. let's not forget that he has gold-plated family inurance coverage

and a highly paid job which he can leave to tend to her whenever he must.

SOme choices are easier than others.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. They have that choice and I clearly stated that.

However the fact that they would deny everyone else the same right is hideous. I disagree entirely with the choice they made while being completely committed to their right to make that choice. That is the problem I have with Authoritarian Moralists, they seek to impose their choices on others, on you and me. I don't, do that, but that does not mean I dont think they made one awful choice.

[Odin2005]

2. That is some rather disgusting reasoning.

First they will prevent babies with Tri18 from being born, then it will be ones with Down's Syndrome, then Autism. This isn't a slippery slope you can un-slip.

[surrealAmerican]

21. I don't think the slope is quite as slippery as you say ...

There's a pretty big difference between Tri18 and Downs Syndrome or Autism: both in long-term survival prospects, and short-term health and quality of life issues.


Besides, we're talking about the informed parent(s) having a choice, not about forcing anyone to abort.

[Marnie]

25. It has been un-slipped for decades as many

parents have been choosing to abort fetuses with sever genetic abnormalities.

As well as aborting when the mother's life is at grave risk.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. In no way did I propose coercive euthanasia.

[Neue Regel]

3. While you claim to respect their choice in this matter

It is obvious that you don't.

"How dare they? That child will know nothing but suffering for its brief unfortunate life."

How can you claim that this child does not feel the love of her parents, brothers, sisters, and other family? How can you say that she does not experience the sense of wonder and joy that all children feel in their lives? Who are you to determine whose life is worth living? Do us all a favor and self-delete your post while you still can.

[gulliver]

4. It's not wrong if you don't think about it.

George W. Bush was the master of this.

The Santorums may have been trapped by it though.

[Missy Vixen]

5. The most interesting part of this issue to me

Santorum chose to run for President, rather than spend whatever time his child might have left with his family.

It speaks volumes about what kind of person Santorum is, at least to me.

[undeterred]

11. Well, it does seem kind of odd.

A lot of times people step back from jobs and campaigns for family health reasons that come up, and having a child like this would make it really tough to be on the road. But perhaps they knew it would be a short campaign season.

[hyphenate]

31. I agree

it certainly does that job with intensity.

[Quantess]

7. Yes, your post is in poor taste and shows a lack of class,

especially the timing of it.

I agree with some of what you say, but you have a couple of whopping offensive gaffes, there.

[rocktivity]

9. Like Tim Tebow's mother,

Last edited Tue Jan 31, 2012, 03:26 AM - Edit history (2)

Rick Santorum is proposing that completing a high-risk pregnancy must be the only choice for everyone because (religiously speaking or otherwise) it was the right choice for him.

Many of us have expressed admiration that Santorum isn't "using" his daughter for political gain. I say that that he uses her as "living proof" that the best kind of reproductive choice is none.


rocktivity

[LibertyLover]

10. They had the abiliity to choose and they took it

I would not change that for anything. That they want to change it for others is not right. I also believe that they may be called to answer for the choice they made in the next world. That's between their God and them.

[msanthrope]

12. I wonder if their prior fetal death was Trisomy 18-related.

Ultimately, they have the power to choose to procreate freely.

They are not immune from critique however, when they wish to deny choices to others.

I will not judge them for their choices....but for the choices they wish to inflict on others....

[Raven]

13. My first reaction to this story was why did

Santonum get into this race in the first place? Aside from the sad situation for this child, it is sad to me that he would make politics a priority over being with this kid.

[Thumper79]

14. But...but...but Santorum values LIFE

It makes no difference if that life is short and painful and yes, he does think he knows what's best for all pregnant women cuz god told him so and he speaks for god.

[hyphenate]

33. +1

[proud2BlibKansan]

15. It's their choice

And I will defend their right to make this choice.

It's not a choice I would make, but I would never impose my values on them.

[Snotcicles]

19. Even though, if elected he would fight diligently to deprive you of that right. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Exactly

All the more reason to defend choice.

[Snotcicles]

26. That is a distinct separation between our philosophy and their's. nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. We all have a choice

Theirs is not the choice I would make but I will defend their right to that choice. I also would ask them to defend my right to my choice.

[Snotcicles]

28. At least for the time being. nt

[hyphenate]

37. Which he won't

even consider. After all, if he can raise such a handicapped child, anyone can!

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. They didn't know because they refused the test.

I overheard this on a radio interview when I was captive in an auto a few weeks ago. They were being interviewed about why they chose to go forward with the birth, and the whole conversation was about the fact that the test the doctors wanted to run could have a slight % of negative effect to the baby, so they chose not to go forward with it.

It was jaw dropping to say the least.

I can't remember the name of the test, but it is on the tip of my tongue. It was common enough that I had heard of it before, but never knew that there was any 'controversy' about it.

[HangOnKids]

17. amniocentesus

I had it done when I was expecting at 42.

[Ruby the Liberal]

22. Thats it!

I thought that was common, but they made it sound like Russian roulette on that interview.

Did you hear those same kinds of warnings?

[dsc]

30. It does have a slight negative risk

and given that they weren't going to act on the information, for them, not taking the test made the most sense.

[Ruby the Liberal]

38. My shock in hearing them talk about it wasn't 'act' so much

(as in abort) as I knew better - but who wouldn't want to know?

I mean, if something bad this way comes, isn't is preferable to have the opportunity to know what it is so that you can learn a little bit about it rather than trying to manage all of that WITH a newborn infant in tow?

[dsc]

44. that would depend upon the risk

If it were non trivial, then frankly it wouldn't be worth it to me. I admit to having no idea as to what the risk is but I do know it exists.

[Ruby the Liberal]

45. I just mean in general

Whether it is this, or Downs, or any other high risk pregnancy situation. Hopes can always remain high that whatever is diagnosed as potential is mild, or ends up being a false positive, but for me, I would still want to voraciously pursue every inch of knowledge about it as soon as I am aware so that I can have meaningful conversations about it with medical staff if it comes to fruition.

If not, then it is just knowledge I acquired and can pull out of my hat some day and share IRL or on a site like this where discussions are taking place and others are trying to learn.

I just never did get the idea of better off not knowing. To me, that is one step from the 'if we don't talk about it, it isn't real' thing.

[hyphenate]

18. Like a lot of religious right people

they are blind to the needs of others, and tend to instead "please" themselves first, and proclaim themselves martyrs even when something happens that was preventable.

A 48 year old woman better know the GD risks involved in a late prenancy, and unless she's totally stupid, would keep from getting pregnant in the first place. But being the wife of an idiot like Santorum means she's likely been brainwashed over the years, and doesn't know any better.

Santorum is a nutcase, and the voters in Pennsylvania finally got the message a few years back, and I can only hope that this imbecile retires from politics before someone else gets hurt.

[B Calm]

23. But in 1996 didn't his wife have a life threatening late term abortion?

This was when they brought the dead baby home from the hospital for the kids to meet. After bringing it home they made the other children hold it and then he and his wife slept with it in bed. He also has a picture of it on his desk in Washington.

And he wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.

[blue neen]

35. My friends had a baby born with trisomy 18.

She lived for 11 months...and she suffered greatly for every minute of that 11 months.

[rocktivity]

46. My research on the subject has taken me through many trisomy memorial Youtubes

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:29 PM - Edit history (7)

Turns out it's available in 23 different flavors, one for each pair of chromosomes. Trisomy 21 is what we know as Down's Syndrome!

At age 3, Bella's already beaten a lot of the odds -- the Trisomy 18 babies who manage to survive being born rarely see their second birthday.

Here's a video of an 8-year old with the condition (no audio):

And this 3-month old died about two weeks after this was filmed.

rocktivity

[rocktivity]

47. K&R to fix video links

rocktivity

[Warren DeMontague]

36. If your "how dare they" is directed to Mr. Santorum's offensive anti-choice legal agenda, I agree.

If your "how dare they" is directed to the personal choice the Santorums exercised in regards to their own daughter, I disagree.

Your OP could be clearer, and seems to conflate the two.

[hack89]

40. How dare they exercise a choice? nt

[Posteritatis]

42. When you say "while I respect their choice," you should actually do so.

Hypocrisy sucks, even if it comes from "our side."

[Canuckistanian]

43. And with all this going on, he decides it's a good time to run for president

Nice guy.