Thanks for this Kris. I think the time I was most proud of my son was after a few days of waiting for that test result, when it came back clear his comment was, "Oh well, I guess I won't have my special olympic champ after all."

Been mulling this over myself the last few days, and like you, I'm staggered by the implications. What saddens me even more is that there will be no way to have a civil discussion on the topic because there is no more common ground on issues like this.

While it is inconceivable for ME, I have recognized over the years that folks have varying and different degrees of nurturing within themselves. I think it must be one of the hardest things to admit that you DON'T have the capabilities to care for a special needs child so I can't imagine that a decision to abort a pregnancy because of that possibility - or probability - would be easily achieved by most people. Are there some who would do it without regret? Sure. But most people would sincerely struggle with a decision like this.

I don't think it is a decision generally arrived at cavalierly or without lots of soul searching. I had my girls during a time in my life when there was risk. Mid 30's and then at 40. I subjected myself to the tests and my doctor asked, "what will you do if the tests show a problem?" I remember vividly that my reply was simply " be prepared."

I do know of folks who have NOT had children for fear of hereditary complications that run in their family. I respect them for not bringing a child into this world that had the potential of suffering for however long life might be for them. I also grieve with them that they weren't able to create the family of their dreams.

Very well written. The only thing I would disagree with or suggest to people reading is to go ahead and have whatever pre-natal tests are offered to you. The worst time to find out you need to be at a good hospital with a NICU or access to specialized neonatologists is after the baby is born.

I am a mother of 3 special needs children. where prenatal test turned out fine the disease they have the test did not pick it up. although I don't think I would have end of the pregnancy. my boys are wonderfully made and they are so beautiful. god place me on this earth 4 a reason I don't know how much time the boys have and they might live a very long time but until then I'm enjoying every minute of them no matter how hard it is at times.

Glad that was no harsh judgement there...

Yeah we all judge each other , the issues come when we attempt to inject our ideals into the personal issues of others. One might think those of a religious bent would be more focused on offering compassion and understanding towards those faced with these difficult and heart wrenching decisions instead of disdain and disgust.

I respect (but disagree with) your opinion; and we have actually discussed this as one of the few times where we would consider an abortion. The sad reality is there are a lot of neglected children with full potential to learn, to strive for and achieve much higher goals; that, if a child we were thinking of birthing was diagnosed as coming out with such a disease, that would make their life short, painful, and limit their growth, we would abort out and try again. If it resulted in an inability to have a pregnancy, we would adopt if we were still wanting children.

It's tough, I'm sure you are going through many struggles in your life because of it. And the end result is a child that cannot get as far as most other children can. But you and your wife stood by your values, and I respect that; I do think the 90% who choose to abort and try again also have a good perspective. And I am venemously opposed to states like PA who want to challenge the legality of testing in the first place; since couples should be able to make all decisions with as much information as possible.

Right Jeff,

Because religious folks never rail against people who dont share their values., ever..Suggesting those who are forced to make gut wrenching family decisions are "sickening " or "appalling" isnt disdain at all .
Right
FWIW I would never DREAM of even offering my opinion regarding a decision that someone else had to make . Unless it's YOUR family or your opinion is asked for you arent in the loop and your commentary is unnecessary and offensive .
Go and be sick everywhere , wander around appalled if you must but dont even dare to pass your judgement on to other families..

Now Grant,

At a minimum, I would say that opinions are valid and I would be really interested in why they don't matter here. Not sure what part of the constitution you are reading when you say that, but last time I checks we did have freedom of speech. I missed that asterick..."Freedom of speech* unless you are Pro-life. If you are you are a moron and religious FREAK and this amendment doesn't apply to you so just shut up"

In any event, this is a public forum. I understand we disagree but I am confused as to how you think you somehow have the right to shut down any commentary from the opposition.

Sorry, my friend. that dog just ain't gonna hunt. If you prefer not to listen to anyone who disagrees, might I suggest plugging your ears with your fingers, shaking your head back and forth while yelling "na na na na"? You do have that right and it'd be far more effective than telling people that their opinion on one of the most divisive issues in the country isn't relevant because it differs from yours.

Do I really need to explain how "your" interpretation isn't "the" interpretation again? I get really tired of repeating myself but it seems everyone else here understands how that works...

We're not really treading any new ground here, are we? Have a good weekend.

What are other implications (besides abortion) of a worldview that supposes that a life that is less perfect is less valuable?

That a life is assigned worth based on their ability to be a fully functional, contributing member of society?

While we value all contributions to the conversation, please ensure that comments do not violate Patch's terms of use.

So....sticking your fingers in your ears and making alot of noise didn't work then? You still hearing opinions you don't agree with? Bummer. Perhaps a sound-proof room with no WiFi next time? Still think that "Your" interp is "the" interp?

Newsflash...it's not, and viscious attacks on those who disagree will not going to change that fact. Too bad that comment was so vulgar that it had to be removed, as I think maybe folks should be able to see what you think of those who dare to offer an opinion that doesn't quite square with yours.

Jason is right...when the subject is abortion, civil debate is off the board. That is a shame.

I mean, there's a long-standing world view that life can be assigned a value based on society. 10,000 die in a building in the US and it's news for a decade; millions die in Africa from a stringent dictator and the news doesn't even bother covering it. It's just nature...

A similar argument could be made for the death penalty; it costs $60,000 per year to keep someone alive in jail; imagine if we took all "lifers" and killed them. Suddenly we could take that money and give it to safety or even charities. So how many are you killing/starving by keeping evil people alive?

But seriously, your efforts and money could have gone to helping a less fortunate (but more capable) child make something of themselves, or bringing another one to the world that was capable of living, and contributing and learning; instead they are keeping alive a child that is barely clinging to life who is simply incapable of doing any of this. I know it's your child, and this is a very difficult subject; but one has to ask... did you really make the right choice here?

It's not "perfect" vs "imperfect" it's "raising a 2% child instead of an 80% child". Nobody is perfect, but there are levels where you can say it is NOT worth the troubles.

Or when in doubt, you (and your wife) sacrificed no doubt much of your potential, as parents and providers, to raise that child; is that really fair to any of the other children you could have provided for?

David, I appreciate your honesty and frankness in the discussion. There probably aren't too many people willing to say some of the things you have said. I have to say, some of your comments have the tendency to rub me the wrong way, and some of that is probably from sensitivity having a son that many would likely abort if they were able to know he had this disease.

To me it's not about a 2% child versus an 80% child. After all, where's the line? What's the standard? Is there a "perfect" child/person that is the 100% and the goal/desire of a parent is for their kids to be like this 100% one?

My son, and others better/worse than him are valuable and worthy because they are a person. Not because of their contribution (or lack thereof) to society, not because of the resources that it may or may not take to care for them.

Where is the "line in the sand" for such a worldview? My son's disease didn't show up until after birth. Should it be okay to terminate the life of someone who has now became such a "burden" to their parents/society? What about someone who is paralyzed in an accident as an adult? What about an elderly person who is now living in a nursing home?

David - Your argument sounds perilously close to eugenics. I don't want to put words in your mouth, as you've not said anything about aborting "2%" fetuses as a way to create a genetically superior race, but your words could certainly lead down that road.

To me the biggest problem with your argument is that you don't know what an individual is capable of contributing to society if he/she isn't allowed to live. And while Down Syndrome may be the prevailing genetic un-favorite today, what's to stop other, less severe genetic anomalies from becoming de riguer to abort? Or what if suddenly autism is too much of a burden? So long, future Temple Grandin. Or ALS? Farewell, future Dr. Stephen Hawking.

Or what about you? Because if you open Pandora's Box and assert that society determines the value of a human life based on what an individual can contribute to society, what's to stop that society from deciding that you aren't contributing in an acceptable way? What's to stop society from saying that your life is no longer worth supporting?

This argument was used around 70+ years ago in Germany, and it resulted in the Holocaust. I know I'm going to be slammed for even mentioning that, and there will be a ga-jillion qualifications as to why the connection should never be made, but the bald fact of the matter is that when you try to assign value to human life beyond the idea that it's human life, the slope is too slippery to remain upright very long.

I gather you won't be volunteering for the special olympics anytime soon, Mr. Leader? No offense, but you sound rather cold and unaffected to make a statement like that. Your talk of efficient people might sound great on some power point presentation in a board room, but you're talking about somebody's kid, man. A four year old shouldn't be judged on a productivity graph. Seriously, we all have different opinions and that's cool, not many people would admit so frankly to your views. I respect that, but couldn't disagree with you in stronger terms. Correct me if I'm off base here, but may I assume your experience with children is limited, and with special needs is nil? I just can't fathom how else someone could put the value of human life into percentages. We get that sometimes when talking about abortion, but you're putting children already born on some pie chart of worth based on physical/mental challenges. Wow, dude....that's cold.

They are cold, I'm just preventing the other side of the coin. The issue is "if children are going to be born, lacking the motor and/or mental skills, should people feel OK aborting them?" It may sound harsh, but again I am making the statement that, given the ability to "early detect" these issues, we SHOULD remove those who are going to be physically (and especially mentally) incapable when they come out.

There shouldn't be a special olympics in the future; or it should be much smaller. As Kris stated, like it or not 90% of people agree with me... they would much rather abort the fetis and try again than try to take care of a "special needs" child.

Whatever child I bring in the world, I want them to be able to make or break it for themselves; to lead a full and fulfilled life, understanding everything they are and can be. If I'm going to be bringing in a child that will be confused, need continual attention, and will ultimately die early after all of this attention... do I think that is a good idea? No, you're not doing anyone any favors by brigning that child into the world. In fact, you're taking away from the more capable children.

It's a fine line in the sand, I get that, and understand the arguments and the anger at thinking about it. But 90% of people agree with me, even if they aren't willing to say it in so many words.

My church has an active special needs ministry with some amazing leaders. I am privileged to be friends with one of these leaders. We have special needs adults in that class that work just like you and I. Many years ago when my daughter did gymnastics, there was a special needs young lady that trained there who won many medals on the National and even World level for Special Needs Olympics. I worked at the desk and she came up every month and wrote a check from HER checkbook to pay her dues. I was honored to accept the first check she ever wrote. I know there are varying levels of function for special needs and many may not attain these levels, but what if these people had been one of the 90%? I can tell you for a fact that my life/life perspective would be different than it is now. For this very reason, I say that the "value" of a special needs child/person is just as valuable as anyone else.

Vulgar huh?
Well you guys had it coming , you earned it so I hope you saved a copy in your inbox
Nothing more vulgar than those who believe their judgement can be inserted upon others, or those who would label other people faced with impossible decisions as "sickening".
"Absolutes" simply dont apply to people..eventually you might learn this simple tidbit , but I doubt it .

Wow, Mr. David Leader, I really believe my breakfast almost came back up after reading your comments. I find it awfully sad and unfortunate the mentality of our culture to assume that a child with special needs who may need extra protection, less intelligent and may only live a few short years, to be less valuable than you or another human being. A "normal" child can end up being dumb because they don't study hard enough, die of obesity because they play too many video games and eat candy all day...does that mean they aren't valuable? Are you saying that a child with special needs may not hang around long enough to make a valuable contribution to this world? Have you held a premature baby that comes at 26 weeks and spends 30days in ICU barely fitting in the palm of your hand? No, probably not. But the difference she has made in 100's of people's lives. She died. But her 30 days were worth the weight of gold when it comes to value and contribution in this society. I have personally worked with adults with special needs. I have seen first hand and felt first hand with my heart the contribution they give back to society. The adults I worked with were artists. They WORK selling their art. They create it, sell it and use it to live. I wonder if the normal person down on welfare has offered much of value this week. If children with special needs are given a chance to grow into adults, we would be amazed at what they can offer. Oh and by the way, I am not Christian. I am human!

There are no "absolutes" in life. These tests are not 100% in any case. I supposed you also support euthanasia for adults who become disabled later in life. This is a place for personal opinions and opinions are like rear ends. Everybody has one. Please save the nastiness and judgement for somewhere else

Mr. Leader
If your parents had known you would be lacking some of humanity's most important skill sets such as compassion, fairness, and the ability to accept others without casting them off, would they have chosen to abort you? My feelings of you based on your comments is that you will contribute far less to this world that is of true lasting value than many of these special needs children. Your one contribution is that those of us who have not lost our heart will learn from you to be more compassionate and stand stronger for those that cannot. But to assume that because someone can't care 100% for themselves they are worth tossing aside.May the universe never cast anything your way in terms of your spouse becoming ill and unable to care for herself. Or you yourself becoming unable to care for yourself,and I truly hope that you never have to find the burden of caring for your parents in their golden years, because, yes, we know how much less valuable our loved ones become when we have to care for them beyond what they can do for themselves (geez!!). I really do have a saddened heart for you. Oh and I believe we have found just one of your less than perfect contributions.90% of people do not agree with you. If that was the case, do you think abortions in general would be so heavily debated? Do you think that if 90% agreed with you, we would have just passed harder abortion laws in the state of GA? NO, so sir, math seems to be your weakness. What is your value now?

Actually Jason, considering the topic I would suppose there are those born without rear ends ...

Alicia...do you really think "passing harder abortion laws" is anything more than political pandering to the religious fundies ? Historically abortion laws have virtually no affect on the prevalence of the practice other than to make it more dangerous and increase the maternal mortality rate ..

If "less than perfect" was determined by ignorance and disgust, seems like one poster would have fallen into the abort status!!!!

We're a conservative state; abortion law and, well, pretty much every other law are going to be based on those conservative "morals" that tell women what they can and cannot do. And as previously stated, it's not hurting anyone other than the poor; the more afluent always find ways to take care of their children. In fact, the decrease of crime in this country largely has Rowe v Wade to thank, because many unwanted children were NOT brought into this world (Source: Freakanomics - unusual economincs).

Math isn't my weakness; oddly and ironically, it's my major. But in direct fairness, I didn't look up the number, I trusted Mr. Parker and his numbers. The very words "special needs" imply people have to put forward extensive additional efforts just to keep them around and semi-abel to do anything within society.

No I don't think harder abortion laws are the answer. I was just pointing out how heartless Mr. Leader is in ignoring his own weaknesses and feeling that some should be cast off. I am actually not conservative in many ways. I am a feminist. I have a lot of views on a lot of different things. But I think to assume someone is worthless because they have special needs is disgusting. I don't think abortion should be regulated by the government at all...yep I said it. I am pro choice. I do think some people need to learn more compassion for those they think are not worth living because they cannot contribute the way Mr. Leader thinks every citizen should contribute.

Mr. Leader I do hope you realize that your views on the "less perfect" have been acted upon before by a very influential leader. This leader also moved on to broaden that definition of "less perfect" to include certain people groups of a religious belief. These people suffered a great deal because one society deemed them undesirable. So I hope you see that your view of eugenics leads to a very slippery slope. The definition of who is less valuable becomes a numbers game. The perfection of the race is sought after and only the most productive members of society are exalted. So stand proud Mr. Leader because your views stand shoulder to shoulder with one of the most reviled leaders in all of history. I wonder what Stephen Hawking would have to say about your ideas?

Excellently said Gabe Reed. Thank you.

Godwin's law ... Really Gabe?
You played the Hitler card?
The Derpfest is complete .
I suppose suggesting that those most in touch with their personal issues should be the ones to make decisions regarding those personal issue is just silly?

Typical

Grant said it best; the Hitler card was pulled out; and comparing genetically pulling out people that are unable to act properly in society rather than "try again" and bring someone who will not be a burden on the world is different on all levels.

And Hawking would have been born by any standards; his condition became as we know it now in 1985, and in early 2000 was when he became fully paralyzed and using the computer to speak that he is known for now. Also, obviously he wasn't born with a mentally incapacitating disease that rendered him unable to provide use for society; and being that he has lived to his 70s it can be assumed he was not born with anything preventing him from leaving early childhood.

Again, it's not perfection we're seeking... it's the ability to eliminate those who cannot function. If people are going to be mentally handicapped and be kept up by their families for their entire lives, it is acceptable for people to make the decision to abort them and try again. It's not "eliminating people because they don't have blond hair", it's "eliminating them because they cannot be anything but a burden to society".

David? What is acting properly in society mean? I mean, I see someone like you and I think that is not proper. Are you suggesting you shouldn't exist? Someone whose child screams at Kroger over a candy bar? That isn't proper? Should we toss them on the way out? Alcoholics who cannot handle their booze at the bar? Should we get rid of them when they sober up? Teens bullying other teens online or in the mall? That isn't proper? They are smart, can dress themselves, but they don't act proper. So what should we do with them? What exactly is acting proper and who defines it? And...are you saying that a child with special needs is incapable of showing more respect, manners and insightful thoughts than these other members of society? I encourage you to spend more time with children with special needs...of ALL spectrums, not just severe, not just mild. From Downs Syndrom, to Autism, to Cerebal Palsy. Spend some time with them and find out what their lives are about. Then look each and every one of them in the eye and tell them they are better off dead! If you can do that, sir, I can only hope Darwin's survival of the fittest kicks in.

Anything but blond hair? You do know Hitler killed physically and mentally handicapped people as well because he felt the same as you, right? He didn't just kill Jewish people.
I had an entire post typed out to you and it disappeared. I will attempt to say it in a couple of sentences as my children are ready for lunch. In instances such as Down Syndrome, there are is a widely varying degree as to how these individuals will "function" in society. True, some will need to be cared for their whole lives (many living into their 50's and 60's, so not, to use your words, "being born with anything preventing them from leaving early childhood") but many will also be educated (even college) and marry and have jobs to support themselves. BUT you will not know which is which until they are already alive. So where do you draw the line? If the standard is someone being a productive member of society, how do you know which person to abort and which not to? This, of course, not only pertains to Down Syndrome, but any typically developing child as well, since we all know "typical" or "normal" (or whatever word you want to use) people who grow up to be unproductive members of society.

Godwin's Law gets a mention. Hurray! Sorry if it offends but this is in fact no different than the eugenics science espoused by Nazi doctors during the Third Reich. Feel free to rant on about the mention but it's cold, hard fact. David, I would suggest doing more research on what this science espoused. your assertion is inaccurate. What you've stated above as "burdens" are what many Nazi doctors experimented on and worked to "eradicate". Anyone with physical impairments, genetic defects, etc. would be eliminated. This science is far from just getting rid of Jews which in itself if horrendous. Downs, CP, and untold numbers of other diseases and impairments were a focus of Nazi science. Your views are in line with the views of these same doctors. So while you and Grant get a good laugh out of the term for Godwin's Law, it applies to you based on history and your own statements.

Thanks for calling names Grant. At least we know that your open minded-ness is not getting in the way again.

Yes the Hitler card was pulled because that is exactly what David is after. He only wants productive members of society. Enjoy that utopia when you find it cause it won't last long. As for this man thinking he is fit to be running for anything other than the office of head garbage collector he out of his gourd. I would go so far as to say I hope he has a special needs child one day, but clearly he should be a parent to nothing more than a bowl of fish since he can just as easily flush them down the toilet like he says we should do with the "unproductive". You sir are not worthy of the blessing these children bring. Are you running a corporation David? Do you have deadlines that need to be met? Your worldview is eugenics based, plain and simple. You can try and dance around the issue all you want but you are only kidding yourself. David perhaps the next agenda you should address is the elderly and retired since they are clearly unproductive and a massive strain on your bottom line.

OK, since you want to get all Hitlery lets got with that..
Do you see the difference or do you need me to explain it?
Hitler wasnt a big advocate or personal freedom was he? No one has suggested that certain types of kids should all be eliminated, only that the choice to give birth is one to be made by THE FAMILY...
Get it now?

Grant Nazi Germany wasn't all barbed wire and guards. The statements David made referred to specifically eliminated or drastically reducing the needs for special Olympics. Clearly he is taking a political bend on this since he is after all running for office. I can see his campaign signs now, "Tired of your unproductive grandparents? Elect me and I will make them go away!" to David it's all about whether this person can contribute to society or not. There are many examples of full grown adults who are quite unproductive, but David wants to start eliminating them before they take a first breath. He wants to save us money so it can be used in other areas. Such a big heart this guy has. You would think somebody running for any office would stay out of discussions like this since it will most likely end any snowballs chance he ever had.

Well, eliminating grandparents is more of an Eskimo tradition than Nazi. And while I continue to be amazed by your leaps of logic from preventing children that are dysfunctional from being born in the first place (accepting the perspective of aborting if major complications in the child is detected pre-birth) to killing those who have contributed that grow up. It's just that twisted logic that the religious conservatives like to take to prove their point; tapering abortions with mass-genocidial individuals and Eskimos. Too much of a leap my friend; keep things in perspective.

Here we are again with your side bringing out how horrible religion is. How bad is it to cherish the sanctity of life David? That all life is special, not just that which YOU seem as worthy? Please answer that in your next post as I'm sure your potential voter base may want to know. And really when you bring in YOUR statements into the conversation of certain lives being a FINANCIAL burden it's not a great leap in twisted religious conservative logic to think that your next move will be to save us even more money by eliminating all unproductive life. If your going to run for office maybe you should have somebody else make sure your policatical views are put forth in a way that your own words can't be used against you. I keep things in perspective by keeping the past in mind. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

I enjoy spirited debate as much as the next Patcher, but let's keep this to answer Mr. Parker's questions and debating ideology and not the merits of the poster above us, shall we? Come on, guys (and gals) - on both sides - let's stay on topic!

Jeff writes

"So...there are those who feel that aborting an unborn is akin to killing the born. I happen to be one of them, and no "blahblahblahsmallunobrusivegovernment" warblgryl will change that fact."

Right . So you and your family practice those beliefs as you see fit,in this case you dont have abortions . Splendid! Awesome and good for you .
I'm pretty sure that no one on Earth takes issue with you for making that choice and abiding by your convictions.

Yet you take issue with others who dont share your convictions practicing their beliefs. Isnt that right Jeff?
You seem to want your beliefs applied to everyone , I'm simply stating my belief that only those directly involved in the situation are qualified to make the choices for their family.
You know...Freedom?

The discussion isn't even all about abortion. Grant, we're all aware of your position on personal freedoms/responsibility etc when it comes to abortion. What we're (at least I'm) not as clear on is your stance on the actual topic.

Is a less perfect life less valuable?

What makes a life valuable? It's contribution to society, or something else?

Jeff writes
"As for your typical unapologetic vulgarity, I wish I had saved it but I didn't. People should see with their own eyes what you think "I had coming" because I expressed an opinion that didn't square with yours. "

Lest you further your attempts to sully my statements or press your point via subterfuge I'll repost my "vulgarity" . FWIW I question why it was pulled to begin with as I used no foul language at all. For the record it wasnt your opinion against abortion, it was the willingness to pass judgement on those faced with traumatic decisions that drew my ire.
So here it is , again, with what I can only assume were the "offending " technical terms redacted for different words in an effort to please the Patch Nanny

"Kris..... seriously ? Dont pretend ignorance dude and dont make me go chase quotes all over the net... We both know you claimed to be "sickened" by the choices some have made, and Jeff's first comment here is where the "apalling" quote came from. Hey, I'm all for free speech. If you guys want to continue with your (self gratifying) holier than thou judgement fest knock yourselves out. Apparently you are entirely too clueless to realize how foul and hateful your comments are to people who have actually been faced with situations outside of your realm. How very typical of you and Kris to (sprinkle) your half witted all encompassing judgement as if you had some keen insight into the lives and issues facing families other than your own. I find the very idea that anyone would claim to be able to even attempt to make a valid commentary in such a personal and difficult decision unbelievable...The world is NOT black and white and every situation is different"

You need a hand getting off that high horse or can you do it all by yourself there Jeff?

Would I be easier to hit if I were on a shetland pony? You do tend to aim low...

Kris writes

"What we're (at least I'm) not as clear on is your stance on the actual topic.
Is a less perfect life less valuable?
What makes a life valuable? It's contribution to society, or something else?"
I think you are aware of my stance Kris. It isnt up to those uninvolved in the personal and specific decision to attempt to determine "worth".
Again , your judgement and beliefs apply only to you and yours

This is obviously a contentious subject but one where debate is valuable. Can we please just debate the topic not the person. It would be so much better if we gave our opinion and valued the right of the person - on both sides of the issue - to have theirs.

Quit stomping around the question Grant and just answer it! While Kris may be in the know, enlighten the rest of us.

"It isnt up to those uninvolved in the personal and specific decision to attempt to determine "worth".

Which word dont you understand Gabe?

Let's say you were faced with that issue personally. Then what would your answer be?

A personal decision. I hate to bring up the obvious here but someone is being left out of this personal decision. No voice. No protections. No due process. Worth of another human being is NOT subject to definition by another human being. For someone always ranting about imposing values, morals, etc. on others, it seems quite odd to say others, even if blood related, can say you are not worth living. Some of these tests are inconclusive and many cannot detect anything later in a pregnancy. So where are the exceptions? You see, there has to be some principle applied here. You can't just say "leave it up to the family". What in the case of a husband wanting birth and the wife not? Whether you like it or not Grant, this is an issue society has to take a stand on. I stand on the side that all life is precious. I stand on the side that all life should have equal protection under the law. You give this view on letting a family decide. How far along can they make this decision? ten weeks? Three months? Six months? Just before birth? After birth? What if the couple was poor and did not have access to elaborate testing but found out after birth this child had some disease they thought not worth living for the child? I can go on and on here. It's really easy to just say "let the family decide a private issue but in reality there are standards society MUST apply and this requires concrete examples and situations.

Nearly impossible question to answer but if indeed we (my family) were faced with such a decision we would weigh our ability to care for the child, his expected "quality of life" , his suffering and all the other pertinent issues and make a decision , and we would certainly not give a frog's fat fanny if our decision appalled Jeff or made Kris barf...
The choice would , as it always is and hopefully (if we can keep the "Conservative Christians" out of our bedrooms and our women's vaginas) will be up to the family

Craig ,

Apparently you are under the impression that abortion laws actually have some effect on the prevalence of abortion. Once you understand the simple facts of human anatomy and a little historical perspective you realize that "society" has never had a say in the personal choice of a woman to bear a child to term .

David, you claim you will be running for city council and that is not really a political office. You said you just wanted to be involved in your community. Do you reside in a community void of special needs children or adults? Will you ignore their needs, opinions, thoughts, and those who advocate on their behalf? If so, I believe that should be known to those in your city. They would need to know you only represent those who are 100% productive in society, having no ill features, requiring no network of assistance...100% self sufficient! You do realize that that takes out EVERY person as we all need help from someone. If we did not, you, my friend would have no need to get involved in your community. I would hate to have you on my city council advocating for people who are less than your idea of perfect to be ignored, eliminated or whatever you want to call it.

Craig... is it the big words that give you trouble?
I cannot be responsible for the rest of the world. Women can and will abort as they so choose , always have always will and there isnt a thing you or I can do about it .
Crack addicts are gonna do crack , heroin addicts are gonna do heroin , sadly some of these folks get knocked up .
Is it worse to abort the kid in utero or have it die from neglect or latent addiction on the a street? Not my call
Frankly I'd prefer every mother to be just like June Cleaver but humans mostly suck and therefore all I can do is be responsible for me and mine .

For those of you that want to have abortions because it's not fair to the child or the parents and because it's a burden on society to even say that we know that you don't have a heart ad obviously don't think about what you are doing to a human. Everyone is perfect in their own way. If that's the way of thinking then you think that people on welfare should be terminated and elderly that can take care of themselves should be. Now of that doesn't get your attention lets say you have no insurance and you get in a horrible wreck which requires these firefighters or paramedics to save your life why dot they just let you die because you are a burden on the tax payer and the society!

Alicia > I ran for political office, not running; I may again one day, but no time soon (obviously my willingness to voice my opinions on things is something that would need to be improved before then :)). I'll still be pro-choice at that point, more than likely (though who knows, my world views have certainly changed over the last twenty years).

I have no issue with those who take care of special needs children; I even stated I have no issue with those who make the choice to bring one into the world knowing their situation, as is the case of the article writer. I'm just saying it's not my personal choice, and I think it should be a valid choice. This is something Angie and I talked about; we hav considered the option of having a kid, and when doing so this is a valid question you have to ask yourself, so it was VERY recently on my mind.

So don't think I am ignoring those who are in this world; they're here, they have to be taken care of. But if you have the option of preventing more people that have these "special needs" from coming in the first place? Excercise it; that is my honest recommendation.

Mr. Leader, It breaks my heart that you hold such a low opinion of the special needs community. I've been so angry with you and others this entire time but now I'm really just sad for you. I'm so sorry that you don't know the joy of having a child speak to you with their eyes and their smile. To let you know that they love you without ever uttering a word. I'm sorry that you haven't seen grown men who are generally gruff and "manly" climb down in the floor to play and love on a "special child". I'm sorry that you have no desire to experience the blessings that come with having a special needs child. Is it hard? Yes. Are there days I feel its more than I can take? Yes. Has there ever been a time I wanted to take my special needs son and make him "normal"? No way. He's taught me more in the past 5 years than I have ever learned from anyone. Will he contribute to society the way that you do? Probably not, but he's changed the lives of more people than I can count. You have a right to your own opinion and I respect that. However, I can assure you that you will never truly understand the special needs community until you love a special needs child.

I am just reading this article today. Mr. Leader, I think your mistake in this discussion was speaking directly to Kris, because you then made it about his decision and his child, instead of an abstract issue. In regards to this issue, my life has been forever enhanced by working with people with Special Needs. I am pro-choice. I have a family member with special behavioral needs who has caused my family great amounts of stress. I can say that the attention that was focused on him caused a great deal of attention to be drawn away from the two children in the family who were higher functioning. I believe that every child should be a wanted child - because unwanted children lead to higher rates of abuse and neglect, and certainly affect crime rates. I have learned so much by working with people who have Special Needs. I have lost one parent who has literally lost touch with reality due to the life challenges faced by my family member with behavioral issues. There is some basic merit to Mr. Leader's argument, even though the delivery of his argument is repulsive at times. As repulsive as Grant's delivery of argument has been, I have to say, I agree with his platform, this decision is so personal and affects innocent children and their raising - I think it should be left up to families. Less perfect lives are not less valuable, but they do cost much more. Parents should be ready and willing to pay this cost; society has already proven that they are ready.

I meant, society has already proven that it is ready - in that there are resources appropriated for serving children who have Special Needs.