Human Rights

Now Down syndrome is broken DNA?

Everyone wants a perfect baby. Let’s say you close your eyes and envision what that perfect child would look like. You’d probably imagine a boy or a girl, hair color, eye color, the dimples in their cheeks, a cute little belly button. You’ll probably picture him or her smiling and laughing in your arms, happily going to school one day, getting their driver’s license, getting married.

But what if you find out that that perfect baby you envisioned in your womb turns out to be a little bit different? For some people, that means that the baby no longer has a right to life. And this attitude, that disability must mean death, is most prevalent when it comes to the prenatal diagnosis of babies with Down syndrome. They’re killed 9 times out of 10.

Think about that: 90% of parents who find out that their baby has an extra chromosome – one little extra chromosome – will choose to kill that baby. To never let that child have a chance at life. For every ten babies who get diagnosed with Down syndrome, only one will get to live. Only one. The other nine will be killed – rather brutally, as it’s typically a later-term abortion – simply for being different.

One abortion advocate thinks this is a good thing. No surprise there, really. And while making her “eugenics is awesome” argument, she also dabbles in some extremely outdated, hurtful, dangerous stereotypes about people living with Down syndrome.

Down Syndrome (also called Down’s Syndrome) is a pretty touchy topic for some, and for good reason. It’s a developmental disorder that is caused by the 21st chromosome to duplicate, resulting in developing fetus to have one extra chromosome as opposed to the normal 46 that people should have. Because of this, a child born with ‘trisomy 21′ is sometimes severely mentally and physically maldeveloped. The thing is, not all cases are severe, but amnio tests given during pregnancy can’t really tell you just how afflicted the child will be. That’s why abortion is, and very well should be, an option.

… A lot of women simply do not want to bring a child into the world that is afflicted by an abnormality. This has been debated before, and will probably be debated forever, but the fact of the matter is that this is a choice. It’s a choice that should be left up to the parents and not up to political pundits or the single-parent offspring of former governors. This isn’t something that there should be a group cause against, because it is simply just inhumane to expect people to force themselves into carrying children they do not want, especially when it is due to a medical condition that could either mean a life of dependence or not. It’s a gamble, and not everyone likes to play with the odds.

To those women who do like to gamble against the odds: good for you. Just don’t expect every single parent on Earth to subscribe to the idea that broken DNA is a good thing.

The millions of families who have children with Down syndrome are cringing right now, because this is exactly the attitude they have to fight back against. It is, again, outdated, and overwhelmingly negative. It takes the view that to raise a child with Down syndrome means to forever be a martyr, that life will be miserable, and that choosing to carry a baby with an extra chromosome means you are making some kind of noble sacrifice. A child with Down syndrome clearly isn’t like a normal child, so parents shouldn’t be expected to suffer through raising one.

I can’t imagine that this woman has ever met, let alone interacted with, a family who has a child with Down syndrome. It would probably be rather eye-opening for her. For example, such families tend to be extremely happy and more fulfilled, including the child with Down syndrome. One study found that 99% of parents said that they truly love their child with Down syndrome, and 88% of siblings felt that they were better people because of them. Actual people with Down syndrome (who aren’t drooling morons needing constant care, believe it or not)? Ninety-nine percent of them reported being happy with who they were and with their lives. Another study had similar results, with parents reporting that they had a more positive outlook after having a child with Down syndrome.

Ah, yes. What a cross to bear, all this love and happiness and positivity. It sounds like it must be really hard, raising a kid with broken DNA.

It is people like this writer, Chelsea Hoffman, who make parents feel that having a child with Down syndrome is the worst thing in the world – even though reality, especially in this day and age, could not be more different. Getting a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome more often than not means that you will be overwhelmed with negativity, even from your own doctor. You’ll hear about the worst-case scenarios, all the things that can potentially go wrong.

You won’t hear that with today’s medical advances, combined with therapy, most children with Down syndrome lead perfectly normal, healthy, happy lives. You won’t hear that they go to school, work, live on their own, get married. I firmly believe that if parents were given a more positive outlook on what it means to raise a baby with Down syndrome, they wouldn’t still choose abortion.

But let’s say they still didn’t feel up to the challenge of raising a child with a disability. Fair enough: it isn’t always going to be easy. Believe it or not, there’s a solution to that, too. It’s called adoption. And despite the fact that babies with Down syndrome apparently have “broken DNA,” the waiting lists to adopt a child with Down syndrome are actually very long. But of course, that doesn’t fit into the abortion-on-demand narrative. Raising a baby with Down syndrome isn’t for you, you say. So the argument then becomes, because you’re disabled, you should die?

How is that not an absolutely sickening mindset to have? Forget Down syndrome. People like Chelsea Hoffman are making the argument that the disabled have less of a right to life than the “normal” people do. And there is something very, very disturbing about that.

What gives anyone the right to decide whose life is worth living and whose isn’t?

Live Action on Facebook
  • FB1231

    I find her statements personally offensive, as I have a friend with down syndrome.  He’s an extremely sweet 21 year old who loves life.  I’ve performed in multiple plays and musicals with him.  He’s a great person, and according to this logic, he’s less deserving of life?  Thanks…

  • Ed DeMatteo

    The way they use the excuse of being loving and caring parents when they make this decision is hearbreaking. It’s a completely selfish and self centered act.    

  • Brittany

    this makes me so mad because people know when they start having children that there is a possiblilty to have a special needs child or one with a heath problem it happens! so if your not rdy to raise  the children you produce special needs or not than you pry shouldnt have kids!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1063280576 Robert Jones

    Nine out of ten. This breaks my heart.  So would, for that matter, one out of ten.

  • davenisbet87

    “it is simply just inhumane to expect people to force themselves into carrying children they do not want, especially when it is due to a medical condition that could either mean a life of dependence or not.” < Attitudes like that sicken me. It's that favourite of eugenicists (and selfish people) 'Hey, I don't want to have to spend any time or money above the norm caring for my child'….

    • Sasra

      I can agree with you to a point that if you are not ready to care for a child like this to not keep it, but these children (specifically children with DS) are sought after.  So let other people adopt these children. I just think it is wrong to just throw them away like an empty candywrapper. Let those of us who want them love them and raise them. We chose not to test for a reason so we would not have to make a decision about the life of “our Child”. Ok he has Down Syndrome, had heart surgery, has feeding issues and is like a 12 month old at the age of 2 but I would not trade that little boy for anything. He is a happy child, who loves his mom and dad, who smiles when he sees us, hugs his therapist (I know strange) and flirts with pretty girls. He is just a little boy with something extra. I respect your view and I hope you can respect mine.

      • Leithcil

        Wouldn’t it be wonderful Sasra, if all people returned the heartfelt smiles our boys give us when we smile at them, imagine the how beautiful your day would be! I too would change nothing about my Son!

  • http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art32533.asp PNWmom

    I understand that more than half of women of child-bearing age identify themselves as pro-life; that suggests to me that more than half of the 90% of pregnant women with a prenatal diagnosis who terminate their pregnancy identify themselves as pro-life. Maybe it’s a higher statistic because a certain number of pregnant women with a prenatal diagnosis who identify themselves as pro-choice do choose to carry the pregnancy to term. That is a real heartache for me. Services for babies, children, teens and adults with Down syndrome are being cut for those who have made their way into the world, so if we could turn the tide for the 90% we should also make sure they and their families have the support and encouragement they need during infancy, schooling, and their adult lives. While I don’t think we could enlighten Chelsea Hoffman, I’m sure that pregnant women who are already pro-life could be influenced if there was a promise of financial and educational support as well as appropriate therapies and health coverage guaranteed.

    • Cassy Fiano

      I’m curious why you feel that services for people with Down syndrome are being cut back.  I’ve actually seen the exact opposite.  Most families I’ve spoken to with children who have Down syndrome rave about how many resources are available to them now, and how far we’ve come as a country when it comes to treating Down syndrome.  There is an attitude that this is the best time you could have a child with it, because there is so much available for them out there in this day and age, and there are more opportunities than ever before for people with Down syndrome, thanks to the number of resources available to their children.

      • Leithcil

        I agree with Cassy, after Diagnosis while still in Hospital the Doctor gave me a list of who to contact next, where to go to register for Financial assistance, for Disability Services that offer in home Physio, OT, Speech Therapy, Vision and hearing assistance.

    • Leithcil

      Perhaps that is why Down syndrome is more accepted in Australia, we have evolved as a Country that cares for its Unique People, we have the Financial, Educational and Health Support required. Children with Disabilities can begin Early Intervention in Schools from the moment they come home from Hospital. Perhaps the reason We as Australian have a lower termination rate for pre-natal Diagnosis of Down syndrome is the positive outlook on the disorder itself. Our Gp’s have the positive infomation available on Down syndrome, and incourage the Families with pre natal diagnosis to seek other Families and Associations before making choices. We may be a smaller and a younger Country, but Im proud My Son with DS was born in Australia.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ariane-Bolt/686862118 Ariane Bolt

        Having heard that Australia gave an award for ethics to someone who advocates for infanticide, I must take your analysis of said country with a slight grain of salt…

  • FRLBJ

    Down’s children are the sweetest and most fun! Yes, they can be tiring, but when they ham it up, and make jokes, it makes it all worthwhile. I once volunteered in a vacation home run by the Red Cross for families with handicapped children. The parents could relax in the same hotel, but we helpers looked after, fed and cared for and sometimes entertained their handicapped children from morning to night for the 1 or 2 weeks of vacation. We all vied with each other to look after the Down’s children. They were so funny! We always wanted to hear what they had to say or watch them.
    God bless you and love that baby! You will be so surprised by the joy the Down’s baby brings.The extra chromosome is a happiness and laugh chromosome, I think.Semper Fi. My son is Marine.

  • http://twitter.com/MarauderTheSN Marauder

    “It’s a choice that should be left up to the parents and not up to political pundits or the single-parent offspring of former governors.”

    Because Bristol Palin possesses the power to determine whether or not someone is allowed to have an abortion! Or something…

    When it comes right down to it, how many of us are NOT afflicted by an “abnormality”? Add up all the people with cleft palates, dyslexia, ADD, color-blindness, depression, webbed toes, missing fingers, bad vision, bad hearing, lazy eyes, scoliosis, crooked teeth, asthma, et cetera, et cetera, and you’ve got a huge chunk of the population. Who is anyone to determine that one “abnormality” means someone is less deserving of life?

    I have a friend who’s blind in one eye, deaf in one ear, and was born with a fused jaw that had to be broken and fitted with an artificial hinge. This friend is also one of the nicest people I know and the only person I know who may actually qualify as a genius. And you know what? Even if my friend was a jerk and barely passed eighth grade, it still wouldn’t mean that people should be able to determine who’s “good enough” to be born or not.

    While we’re at it, who determines what an abnormality is? Maybe everybody in your family is an athlete and you’d think it was abnormal if you had a kid who didn’t care about sports and would rather stay inside growing algae in a tank. Maybe you want all your kids to be straight and you’d think it was abnormal if you got a gay kid. Maybe everybody in your family is good-looking and it would be “abnormal” for you to have a kid with a huge nose, skinny lips, and a big square jaw. Heck, let’s just abandon kids who aren’t totally perfect. Your son flunked math class? You never wanted a kid that abnormal! Give up your parental rights and stick him in foster care! Your daughter is lactose intolerant? What an annoyance. Now you’ve got to buy that expensive soy milk. Time to get rid of her and try for a more milk-friendly kid.

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      you do know what chromosomes ARE right? 

      • Sasra

        Chelsey now you really sound dumb are just that ignorant or oh I remember you are a selfcentered &$&%3 I think you can figure it out, if you are smart enough that is. Now I wonder if your mother ever regrets having you a despicable, not worthy of the title, human being. And I am sure that Marauder knows what a chromosome is.  I am sure she is better informed than you are on your best days which I guess you have so few off. Well off to go see my chromosomally enhanced son. 

  • Ingrid P.

    I’m sure I’ll get a lot of hate for this, but this kind of argument is exactly why we do no have the right to kill non-human animals either. Who are we to decide that chickens/pigs/cows/lab rats have no right to life just because their DNA is different? Just because they “taste good” (and perhaps humans do, too)? Because they don’t speak our language? Because they aren’t like us, just like disabled people aren’t like us? Because they aren’t as smart as we are, just like babies or the developmentally disabled? 

    As an animal-rights proponent, I don’t see how someone who believes you can’t kill or torture a sentient being on the basis of genetic abnormalities can defend doing so on the basis of species. And I’d like to head this off before I read it: “Humans are made in God’s image” is not a valid logical argument.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1163596624 Elizabeth Shearer

      Did you really just equate chickens, pigs, cows and lab rats to mentally disabled people??

      • Ingrid P.

        Only in the sense that they are all vulnerable beings who should be better protected by our society. I didn’t mean it in a derogatory manner; I don’t view non-human animals as inferior to us. In fact, I’d prefer the company of my pet rat over that of several people I can think of.

    • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

      First, I’d like to know: if your respect for life is so strict that you oppose the killing of animals, then of course you also oppose the killing of preborn humans, yes?

      Because the difference between human life and animal life is one not only of degree, but of kind. It’s a vast difference that most of civilization has recognized for virtually all of human history. If you won’t accept the concept of God’s image and ensoulment as admissible, then I think there’s an anecdote in Benjamin Franklin’s autobiography that rather nicely encapsulates a more down-to-earth understanding of the different natural orders of mankind and of the animal kingdom: http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/autobiography/page18.htm

      “Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food, and on this occasion I considered, with my master Tryon, the taking every fish as a kind of unprovoked murder, since none of them had or ever could do us any injury that might justify the slaughter. All this seemed very reasonable. But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanced some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs. Then thought I, ‘If you eat one another, I don’t see why we mayn’t eat you.’”

      • Ingrid P.

        Yes, I’m against all unnecessary killing. 

        I’m not really sure what the point of that little tale was, though. Plenty of other species have to eat others for survival; humans choosing to kill simply because flesh might taste better than plants is extremely selfish and not what I would call “pro-life”. It’s not as though Ben Franklin’s fish were cannibals; the larger fish were probably only as closely related to the smaller ones as closely as we are to pigs. 

        In fact, you seem to think that other animals’ killing to survive when that’s their only option is a crime punishable by death. However, most of the animals humans regularly eat (at least in the US) are herbivores; cows, pigs, chickens, deer, rabbits, etc. (Of course, pigs and chickens might be omnivorous give the choice, but those raised today for food are usually only fed commercial grains and don’t deserve to be “punished”.)

        I would also argue that if humans have souls, then surely other animals do as well. You say that humans have always known they’re different from other animals–what does that have to do with anything? Most species are able to distinguish members of their own species from others. 

        Since we’re incorporating quotes from smart dead people, I’d like to close with one from Leonardo da Vinci: ”I have since an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.”

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          The point is that in the animal kingdom there’s no conception of murder, mercy, or rights; it’s pretty much all governed by base needs and instincts, not morality. Survival of the fittest IS the natural order — for animals.

          Um, no, nowhere did I say anything that suggests killing and eating animals is a form of punishment…..

          “I would also argue that if humans have souls, then surely other animals do as well.”

          What’s your basis for this belief?

          “You say that humans have always known they’re different from other
          animals–what does that have to do with anything? Most species are able
          to distinguish members of their own species from others.”

          It’s not merely *that* we recognize we’re different; it’s the nature and the magnitude of those differences, as I said. You really don’t see any profound, fundamental differences between human and animal beyond “species distinguishing themselves from other species”? Nothing whatsoever to suggest a gulf in the moral status of one and the other? The fact that only one species has ever displayed the capacity for true thought, moral reasoning, philosophizing, self-reflection, or developing culture doesn’t point to humans alone being blessed with souls, while lower creatures are just that – creatures?

          • Ingrid P.

            That’s what I got out of the Ben Franklin quote, that it’s okay to eat animals that eat other animals. 

            And as for the souls, well–what’s your basis for thinking that humans have souls? There’s certainly no verifiable empirical evidence that anything called a “soul” exists. To me, I guess it’s that uniqueness about everyone’s character, the bit that survives after death, if anything does. I’ve known many animals in my lifetime, and they certainly have unique characteristics and, for lack of a less-biased word, “personalities”. They can form relationships, make decisions, and experience joy and suffering. 

            And I see plenty of differences between adult humans and other species. Yes, we’re smarter on our own intelligence scale, but humans are also the only species that has tried to destroy its own planet, and the only species that kills and tortures others (of the same and other species) purely for pleasure. (Humans are not, however, the only species to show concern and help others.) 

            This is all rather off-topic, however. I’ll admit that certainly adult humans are smarter than other animal species, but my point related to this article was that when it comes to the severely mentally disabled (which most people with Down Syndrome are not, I know), young children, or fetuses, they aren’t. A baby, and certainly a fetus, are not capable of morality, establishing culture, philosophizing, etc (and I know many adults who aren’t exactly up to those things either). So, does that give us the right to kill or torture them? I don’t think so. In fact, in the earliest stages of development, when most human abortions take place, fetuses don’t have the neurological capability of feeling pain, but we can agree that it’s wrong to kill them arbitrarily. How can it be okay to kill or harm someone who can feel pain?

            I also must point out that humans most definitely are a part of “the animal kingdom” you mentioned at the beginning of your statement. If you’ve studied biology, you’ll remember that as long as you’re multicellular, mobile, and consume your food, you’re an animal too. Most humans I know are fundamentally selfish and driven by their basic needs as well. That’s how we’ve evolved. 

  • Mike B Sullivan

    Chelsea Hoffman has crossed the line into hate speech against the Down syndrome community. Such views have no place in a civilised and humane society and simply reflect her own fears and ignorance.

  • http://www.shannonblaeske.blogspot.com/ Shannon

    thank you

  • http://www.shannonblaeske.blogspot.com/ Shannon

    thank you

  • ModernThinker

    Would like to see actual verification of those “9 out of 10″, etc. statistics. Please post them here, and I’ll check back, research, investigate, and verify they are accurate. I’ll be happy to report my findings, right here, either way.

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      Those numbers aren’t accurate; it’s more like 6 to 7 out of 10, but you know.. if you can’t exaggerate to prove your point, what can you do? lol

      • Sasra

        So then you lie and twist the words which you are very good at.

      • KinderThanYou

        You really need to get out of the house Chelsea.

    • guest

      Please do, the numbers are an average. They are scewed and change based on socioeconomic area, race, relligion, etc. They change from city to city,state to state,depending on cost associated with abortion and or prenatal care, in areas that a woman is less likely to get prenatal care or prenatal diagnosis the number goes down. In areas where the state pays for such testing and termination the numbers go up.

       The largest fact that should be focused on is the incorrect and false tests done. The 18 week quadmarker screen is only 85% accurate, it is used for a diagnostic tool to suggest further testing, some people choose to get further testing others have an abortion with out further testing. the next test is a level 2 ultra sound, again a diagnostic tool to suggest if further testing is needed. People at this point may be faced with what are called soft markers, at this point women again have the choice to have further testing or abort, many do, soft markers are not a 100% indication that there is a abnormality. The last diagnostic tool used is an amnio, the amnio is very invasive and often results in miscarriage, this test is not 100% accurate. I had a friend who had an amnio was told her child had DS, and chose to keep her pregnancy, her child was NOT born with DS. How many babies are being killed for no reason at all, too many. How many babies are being killed because they may not be “normal” too many. How many babies are being killed for selfish reasons, too many. I do not know if I am pro choice or pro life… I am pro information and that is something that is being kept from potential parents and from woman who are faced with the opportunity to choose.

      the exact number of pregnancies aborted for whatever reason is never going to be accurate because people lie…. and therefore we will never know exactly how many. There are still many many many drs and professionals suggesting and even sometimes pressuring women to abort and that is not ok…. if it is a personal choice it should not be pressured on a person by someone they trust who has their own personal agenda and bias’.

      Us in the DS community want to educate people that way they can make an informed decision, they can get the scientific information that is biased from doctors and they can get the biased information from us living it. Either way they are informed of all the possiblities vs the doom and gloom.

      Abortion for what ever reason one chooses is ending a life, if a person is doing it because the gender is not what they wanted, or the baby has the possiblity of having a disorder it is in fact genoside, to attempt to erraticate a person or type of person is genoside by way of stopping a beating heart either before or after birth. If there were a vaccine to prevent DS from accuring I am sure we would see it erraticated and even those women who have already bore a child with DS may take that vaccine, not to eliminate DS, or say that their child with DS should have never been born but to prevent the possiblity of suffering, for the same reason we get chicken pox vaccine or take prenatal vitamins, we want our children as healthy as possible. Until then I welcome a world with DS.

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    I’m ever-so-flattered that I’ve become a bit of a celeb among the mommy groups…but please read my open response to the idiocy:

    http://www.chelseahoffman.com/2012/06/lacking-logic-when-people-compare.html 

    • Mike B Sullivan

      Wow, really digging a hole there, what is it with you and Down syndrome eh?

      Yes it is eugenics, read my blog here http://www.voiceforlife.org.nz/eugenics-down-syndrome-from-slippery-slopes-to-play-ground-slides/

      In the 1920′s the eugenicist had one tool, sterilisation. In 1939 the second tool was implemented, euphenasia. Now the preferred technique is genetic screening and eugenic selective abortion.

      Keep on digging, your hole will just get bigger.

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        you can play pretend, Mike, but I’ll stick to the facts.

        Thanks though!

        (p.s. yes, holes get bigger when you dig them. It’s just a shame that some people try to dig holes with less than appropriate equipment…ouch)

        • Mike B Sullivan

          What facts are those Chelsea?, why not actually respond and debate the facts presented in my blog. Even better, publish my response that I posted on your blog, which isn’t showing.

          You might not like the facts that this is about eugenics, but that is the way that it is. If you find the referance offensive, you would need to reasess your own view point. If you are into eugenics, why show the pretance, we all know what this is about.

          To summarise, the practice of genetic screening for selective abortion were there is a diagnosis of Down syndrome, is by definition eugenics. The purpose is to determine the unborn child with a genetic trait, so that the birth can be prevented. The outcome, is the large scale birth preventation of a naturally occuring group of human beings, based on their genetic identity. That is eugenics, and it is also genocide. It is the same intent and outcome that was adopted in Germany in thge 1920′s and 1930′s. The only differance is the new technology for selective abortion, same intent, same consrquence.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            It’s micro eugenics and it’s the choice of the mother. Most people commit “micro eugenics” when it comes to breeding anyway. There is such a thing as POSITIVE eugenics. The macro eugenics committed by hitler has nothing to do with this. It’s a tired tactic used by those who have a weak argument in the first place so you fall back on over-exaggerating your points and turning them into insults. lol.

            Like I said before, if you want to personally bring these children into the world; go for it. Don’t expect anyone else to fall in line with the fascist expectations that people should be forced into things of this nature. 

            I for one prefer to listen to doctors than idiots with emotional hangups. JMHO. 

          • Mike B Sullivan

             Thats not an argument Chelsea, that just you saying you don’t like people with Down syndrome and resorting to abusive comments rather than having a rational discussion.

            The comparison is valid, same intent, same outcome, you are just hiding behind eugenic “choice”, but its eugenic’s all the same. And it’s negative eugenics, because it involves the taking of another human beings life.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            0_o wrong.

            I don’t dislike people with down’s syndrome — that’s just you and your lot jumping to ad hominem and non sequitter comments simply because I support a woman’s right to abort a defected fetus.

            And that’s exactly what it is. 

            If you’re so offended by the medical facts of the matter, maybe you shouldn’t take part in discussions pertaining to said topics.

            Abortion isn’t negative eugenics, but like I said, you can play pretend and twist the definitions of reality all you want.Some people would rather stick to the facts of the matter….and it appears that that is a majority of people by the way… ;) 

            so… there you go. 

            It appears that presenting facts to you only resorts in comments such as “that is not an argument”

            You can’t pick and choose what’s true or not, Mike. You can pretend it’s not there and you can plug your ears, close your eyes and stomp your feet. But the facts of the matter remain quite visible and the majority of women (in this position) are right there on my side of this topic.

            So you can use the over exaggerated and not-quite-accurate comments of “you’re eugenicists, blah blah blah” — you only make yourself look ridiculous and quite frankly, not equipped to handle a medically intellectual discussion.

            :) 

            My open response came with sources…. not comments like “you don’t like people with down’s syndrome” and “you are hiding  behind eugenic choice.” 

            The fact of the matter is that it’s you who cannot seem to grasp the fact that women have the right to choose and that eugenics is a topic that is far more complex than to be used in such a discussion with the vitriol you are using it with ;) 

            have a good one 

          • Mike B Sullivan

             Doesn’t look like an argument to me. Just old fashion eugenics dressed up as choice. Maybe if you can rebutt my blog on eugenics, we can have a discussion.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            when we (as in you) can stop relying on misdefined buzzwords the conversation could go a lot smoothly.

            :) I’ve yet to end and begin every statement with calling you a fascist… but I very well could.

            Try to learn to debate/discuss/converse with more class than that!

            also, I’m not replying to any one person as I don;t have the time to respond in line to each person here but:

            http://sdakgrandmothersspeak.blogspot.com/ 

            spouting off anti-choice (i.e. so called “pro life”) literature doesn’t count as sources for anything.

            Produce something from a non-biased medical scientifically credible source to back up your points — otherwise, don’t expect the 90+% of women who are on the same side as me to suddenly change their minds. Just saying :) 

          • Mike B Sullivan

             Excellent rebuttal there Chelsea. So a view point that differs from yours is “misdefined buzzwords” and you suggest that you could start throwing a label “fascist” around? Yet you haven’t offered a single factual point to rebutt the opposing viewpoint. You then go to to say “spouting off anti-choice literature doesn’t count as sources for anything” – is that the extent of your argument, that an opposing point of view doesn’t count for anything, and then not actually debate a single issue?

            You want a non-biased medical scientifically credible source, I gave you one, here it is again http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/euthan.html

            Or doesn’t http://www.crds.org/research/faculty/Gregor_Wolbring.shtml his view count as he has a disability?

            Referring to an unborn human being with Down syndrome as a “defected fetus”, is far from classy. That statement simply reflects the view point of the author as to what they view as a defect, and reflects their own world view. It says nothing about the unborn human being and their basic human dignity, as a human being. The “defect” is the view of the observer , it’s just a reflection of their own attitude.

            If you want to discuss fascism, go to my blog and then rebutt any factual point I made anbout about screening and eugenic abortion, in that it has the same intent and consequence as the T4 programme. Calling eugenic abortion “choice” doesn’t change the fact that it is eugenics.

            As stated by the French Council of State in 2009: “Eugenics may be the
            fruit of a policy deliberately carried out by a state. It may also be the
            collective result of a series of converging individual decisions taken by
            future parents in a society that seeks the production of the “perfect child” . An attitude ably demonstrated by yourself.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            International Center for Bioethics, Culture and Disability  isn’t a nonbiased source.

            0_o

            you do know what “nonbiased” is right? 

            your long and drawn out responses continually negate what I’ve already said while demanding for me to repeat what I’ve already said.

            I don’t repeat myself. I don’t *have* to form a rebuttal against misinformation. You’re continually spouting off pro-life biased nonsense while only using sources from cultural-anthropological and “biolethical” sources – i.e. not medically credible but socially-pandering to a fringe group.

            You are not really doing well at arguing against the facts of the matter — which are published and easy to find.

            I suggest using search.edu

          • Mike B Sullivan

            LOL – Actually
            Gregor is an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of
            Community Health Sciences, Specialization Community Rehabilitation and
            Disability Studies, Calgary. And the subject is disability selective abortion,
            which by definition covers health sciences and disability studies.

             

            If that isn’t
            a nonbiased source then neither is a pro abortion woman discussing abortion, so
            good luck with that logical fallacy.

            What information do think is misinformation?

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            You sure areobsessed with this Canadian….. 

            Are you an American or do you just hate it here? 

          • Stella McLeod

             Abortion in itself isn’t eugenics, but it can be used as a tool to “weed out” (i.e. kill) humans who are deemed not worthy of life, just as once gas chambers were used as tools to do the same thing. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/714411/T4-Program

            Chelsea, please consider what it is that “women have the right to choose” do. They “choose” to have someone kill their children in the womb. Would you be so keen on choice if it were still allowed sometime after birth (much safer for the mother), and if so at what age would “after-birth abortions” become infanticide?

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            a fetus isn’t a child. It’s not a sentient life form — therefore it is not murder.

            It’s really simple biology in conjunction with legal terminology — understanding of both would make this topic a lot easier for you.

          • Mike B Sullivan

             I see debating is not a strong point. Stella referred to “humans” not a “child”, and a fetus is a human being. Simple biology really.

          • Stella McLeod

            Thank you Mike. I assume, Chelsea, you would agree that the progeny of  two humans is also human – a scientific fact and also simple biology that my daughters despite their intellectual limitations have no difficulty in understanding.
            Can you prove a fetus is NOT sentient (alive/conscious)?  After all it wasn’t so long ago that it was presumed newborn babies could not feel pain as this 1987 article shows. http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/24/science/infants-sense-of-pain-is-recognized-finally.htmlt/Babies_don%27t_feel_pain_Eminence_based_stupidity_part_4/

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            I don’t have to prove that  a fetus isn’t a sentient being. Biological science already did that ;) the details can be learned in any “basic biology” course in college or the later years in high school. 

          • liveaction

            If “sentience” is the basis for having a right to life, unborn children aren’t the only ones who wouldn’t have the right according to your argument.  In addition, it’s patently false to claim that unborn babies aren’t “able to perceive or feel things” (a simple definition of sentience).  It’s been proven that they feel pain, for example at least by 20 weeks and some studies have some much earlier. 

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            ad hominem attacks because your stance is weak, Mike.

            Try again… more bees with honey than bile ;) 

          • liveaction

            Chelsea, read this paper and then see if you want to make the same claims: http://www.dakotavoice.com/Docs/South%20Dakota%20Abortion%20Task%20Force%20Report.pdf. If you refuse to read it, you’re choosing to be ignorant. If you disagree with it, you must think that you are much more knowledgeable than incredibly educated and experienced scientists/biologists/geneticists. I hope you read it.

          • Anonyme

            Actually, an abortion is statistically safer than going through with a pregnancy and childbirth.  (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123)

          • liveaction

            Should anything that results in one dead person where two living ones go in be considered truly “safer”?

          • Stella McLeod

             Only in the short term, and some of the birth complications were caused by previous induced abortions. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctors-slam-abortion-safer-than-childbirth-studyminence_based_stupidity_part_4/

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            so abortion is only okay when it isn’t a defected fetus? 

            That makes no sense at all. Like I stated in my post, it indicates that you’d rather healthy babies be flushed out that ones that have the potential of being severely stunted. That’s rather extreme IMHO 

          • guest

            abortion is never ok, not for the any life involved. In some instances it is chosen due to the burden it places on a person who has not made a concience decision to become pregnant. It is a difficult choice for any person who has the ability to feel emotion. No one wants to get an abortion and those who do tend to struggle with their decision their entire life. Choosing to get pregnant and then choosing to end said pregnancy for any reason is just that much worse for all involved. The idea that someone choses termination for medical reasons happens only when a parent feels there is no hope. The reality is that there is always hope and tests are not always correct. Abortion for any reason other than birth control coinsides with the belief systems fo  eugenics. It is geniside

            eu·gen·ics   /yuˈdʒɛnɪks/ Show Spelled
            the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics). What Hitler did is eugenics, Hitler believed that he could improve the human species by eliminating undesireable traits. His was on a much larger scale than Down Syndrome but his beliefs are exactly what you are defending.Genoside is not defined as erraticating a group of undesirable people like those with DS but it should be, as it is genoside is defined at killing of political or racial or nationallity. The idea of erraticating DS or people with disabilities should be included in that definition. the only reason it is not is because a large amount of our society still see people with disabilities as less than desirable humans not deserving of the same basic human rights. It was not long ago and in some countries it still exisists that women were looked at the same way. In reality all abortion is killing a human life, it is just legal because there are many who do not see the human life as having any rights until it is viable outside of the womb. For as long as there are people who argue for abortion and against those with out typically developing lives we will be in trapped in that society. what it all comes down to is belief systems not science, not religion, not polotics, not law. There is only one fact no matter what the reason abortion is ending a human life no matter what stage of development it is in it is ending a life. Doing it because that life could be considered defected is genetic selection (negative eugenics). The process of sperm banks and selecting a donor is ( positive eugenics). Eugenics is not always bad and does not always involve the death of a human life. the reality is even with positive eugenics there are no guarentees that your child will not be defected. Congenital Heart Defects are the most common birthd defects among all convieved persons, then there mulitple other defects, cleft pallette, club foot, mental delays, cerbral palsey… many many many other defects that can not be diagnosed prenatally so they are born and their parents deal with it, or put them up for adoption. There are no guarentees period.

          • liveaction

            And yet, Chelsea, it’s your opinion that aborting a baby with Down Syndrome is “positive” eugenics. Many would view this on par with what Hitler did…trying to weed out a certain class of people. You can down play it all you want, but in the end, you are just attempting to rationalize away the killing of innocent people with a different gene sequence.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            and “many” (whatever that number is) would be incorrect since Hitler practiced macro-eugenics (negative) whereas a woman making the health-conscious choice of either aborting or not aborting is micro-eugenics which is an entirely different concept.

            So are you saying that it’s at the fault of others that this “many” would be uneducated on the matter? 

            0_o

            Again see this post:
            http://www.chelseahoffman.com/2012/06/lacking-logic-when-people-compare.html 

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            here you go *again* — and *again* my posts come with actual sources.

            http://www.chelseahoffman.com/2012/06/lacking-logic-when-people-compare.html 

      • Sasra

        Mike, 
        I think I can give you the answer to the question what it is with her and Down Syndrome. You see a while ago she wrote a piece of trash she considers an article backing up parents who sued the doctors who told them that their baby did not have DS. A bunch of us jumped on her and disagreed with her stance this matter.  We explained to her why what these parent did was wrong, etc etc. We tried to reason with her and explain to her that these children deserve to live, but she came back with some lame answers. And to be honest with you I read the below response from her she has a problem with children, adults and the parents of these individuals because we voiced our opinion and she is soo closed minded there is no hope for her. Also don’t open her blog every time someone does she gets paid we are boycotting her in our little DS world. Yes we are on to her. Spread the word.

      • Leithcil

        Perhaps Mike, she is related to Langdon Down himself……..he may be the man to have discovered DS and put his name to it, but didnt he believe that “there was no point trying to teach Stupid people” I do believe the same could be said for Chelsea! Arrogance is not something that comes naturally…..it is taught! Shame on the person who taught you so much arrogance Chelsea!

    • Mike B Sullivan

       For Chelsea: A classic discourse from Gregor Wolbring on disability eugenics, Associate Professor, University of Calgary, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Community Health Sciences, Specialization Community
      Rehabilitation and Disability Studies, Canada.
      “The majority of people who live
      beyond middle age will have experienced temporarily or permanently some impairment. It is
      terror and denial of this basic fact and ignorance about disabled people disguised as
      pity, that means we are kept separate, killed or “prevented” so that others can
      forget that potential within themselves for impairment.”

      http://www.bioethicsanddisability.org/euthan.html

      Perhaps you can rebutt that as well?

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        I’m in the United States; not Canada ;) 

        And considering that the nation of Canada not only supports abortion deeply but to the point that women are let off the hook for murdering their living children BECAUSE they weren’t able to get an abortion soon enough, kind of leaves me yawning at your entire post. 

        • Mike B Sullivan

           No rebuttal then.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            none is necessary — Again, I’m in the U.S. where Roe v. Wade made abortion a  RIGHT for women.

            :) 

            Shall I argue about what people in Italy are saying? Nope, because that would just be irrelevant. 

          • Sasra

            I am in the US, bring it

        • The U.S.A.

          Please move! The United States is tired of the rest of the world somehow thinking you represent the rest of us! I feel dumber having read your comments and am embarressed you portray the youth of this country. There are many countries who share your values where you’d find a far better audience for your hate-speech!

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        (maybe you’re only sharing this one person’s biased opinions because he only represents a fringe group… it’s probably harder to find actual universally credible medical sources on why abortion is a safe and effective use against birthing chromosomal anomalies) 

        https://www.msu.edu/user/powellge/tran3.html 

        • Mike B Sullivan

           I could share with you 1,000′s of views of those who celebrate people with Down syndrome. At last we get to your clear bias towards eugenics and genocide towards the disability community. Off course birth preventation is regonised as a crime against humanity following the Doctors trial at Nuremburg.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            you could  but I’ve specifically asked for credible NONBIASED sources to back up the claims that aborting a defected fetus is any kind of “cide” 

            and you’ve done nothing but share propaganda 

            it’s getting boring

          • Mike B Sullivan

             So now the International Criminal Court and the Treaty of Rome are not
            nonbiased as well.  Do you think that an abortion of a disabled child is
            not preventing a birth?

            Lets take you statement “abortion is a safe and effective use against birthing chromosomal anomalies” which shows your bias against those with disability. Lets then apply the same argument to someone who is biased against females and we get:

            “abortion is a safe and effective use against birthing those with female gender”.

            Both are unethical. Both aim to prevent the birth of a child based on there own bias, be it ability or gender.

  • Valueall

    “My dear adolescent young thing” as Shaw would say-one day you’ll get it Chelsea that wiping out innocent, vulnerable and devalued people is wrong. Hope that day isn’t too far away because in the meantime-due to your lack of knowledge, empathy, maturity and unfounded fear of difference-you are aiding and abetting anti-human activity.

  • Stella McLeod

    Chelsea, Did you miss out on a gene for empathy? Or have you aborted a baby with Down syndrome and are trying to justify your decision?

    I read your long list of the other conditions associated with Down syndrome. These are all conditions “normal” babies may be born with or acquire. The vast majority of children with a heart condition don’t also have Down syndrome and the same would apply to every other health condition listed.

    I have three daughters, two of whom have Down syndrome – both had minor heart defects that resolved without the need of an operation. They have a few of the conditions listed between them, but neither has every single one. What they do have, which you seem to have missed out on, is a whole lot of empathy, a sense of humour and a loving acceptance of other people as potential friends. They are also very conscious of the fact, because they are adopted, that they were once babies in their birth mothers’ womb. I am very conscious that they quite possibly are alive because their birth mothers were not subjected to antenatal screening.

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      so just because some kids COULD develop spinal compression it’s okay to purposely increase the child’s chances of developing the condition? (example) 

      You know.. my house COULD catch on fire… should I just set fire to it now then? 

      • Stella McLeod

        To paraphrase you, Chelsea, “so just because a child COULD develop constipation (example) it’s okay to purposely end the child’s life before birth?”

        By the way either you fell asleep during biology lessons in high school or you were badly taught. If the developing child in the womb is not alive there would be no need to deliberately “terminate” the pregnancy, because a pregnancy only ends when the baby is born or when the baby dies in the womb and is expelled (naturally or deliberately). I make no apology for using the word baby, because that is what is growing (i.e. cells multiplying = life). You obviously need a refresher course, so I suggest you watch this.
        http://www.babycenter.com/2_inside-pregnancy-weeks-1-to-9_10302602.bc

         

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          it’s not living-sentient 

          do you know what sentient means? 

          0_o

          • Stella McLeod

             Okay I presume you are talking about consciousness – so is it okay to kill an unconscious person. I linked to a news item, in one of my other comments, to show that even as late as the 1970s it was presumed by some doctors that premature babies couldn’t feel pain. Recent research says a fetus can feel pain as early as 20 weeks and of course one day it may be shown they can feel it earlier.
            We are horrified when murderers deliberately cut up their victims after death. Why shouldn’t we be horrified at what happens to a human body when it is deliberately destroyed before birth?

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          if you’re comparing constipation to spinal compression, then it’s obvious you have your tinfoil hat screwed on far too tightly. 

          • Stella McLeod

             Constipation can occasionally actually be a symptom of a serious condition that requires surgery – as I know from personal experience.

  • Mike B Sullivan

     ”It is one of life’s great paradoxes that the
    most gentle, loving and enduring amongst us have always been the target of the
    eugenicists – those with Down syndrome: the very people who embrace those
    defining human qualities of unconditional love and compassion so needed in this
    age.”http://www.voiceforlife.org.nz/eugenics-down-syndrome-from-slippery-slopes-to-play-ground-slides/Celebrate life!

  • Stella McLeod

    For Anonyme and Chelsea: Quotes from Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and responsible for changing attitudes to abortion so it could be legalised.
    “I remember laughing when we made those slogans up…We were looking for some sexy, catchy slogans to capture public
    opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as all of these
    slogans today are very, very cynical.”"Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number
    of women dying from illegal abortions [in the USA] was around 200-250 annually. The
    figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures
    took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we
    needed to crack the abortion law.” http://www.squidoo.com/Bernard-Nathanson

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      I’d like to see a source that isn’t user-generated propaganda….can you offer any of that? :) 

      • Stella McLeod

         Can you?
        Strange that people like you are quite willing to quote the statistics and the slogans that Bernard Nathanson says were made up, but ignore the truth. How about this from Scientific America Vol 220 [1969] p. 23 from an article by Christopher Tietze. “The National Centre for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood was under 1,000.”
        http://rtlcc.org/docs/backalley/b-PPStatistician.pdf
        Christopher Tietze was a statistician for NARAL and

        • Anonyme

          Um, I’m not sure why you’re bringing up things from the 1960s at all. I said nothing about deaths from illegal abortion before Roe v. Wade. I said that, statistically, it is safer to have a legal abortion (now) than to give birth. I linked an article from a credible, unbiased source. You’re putting forth articles from very biased sources about illegal abortions that have absolutely nothing to do with what I said. To recap:

          You said that some people might argue for “after-birth abortions” because it would be safer for the mother. I said that that is incorrect. That is all. 

          Besides, anyone who says “well then why isn’t it okay to kill newborns?” doesn’t understand why people are pro-choice–it’s about the woman’s right to her own body. Once the baby is out of her body, then someone else who wants a child can take care of it and she still has control over her body.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            common sense is lacking in many of these people’s arguments @4f64c9f81bb0d4ee969aaf7b4a5a6f40:disqus ….

          • Stella McLeod

             Bernard Nathanson says they made up the slogans about “choice” and “my body”, e.g. “Women must have control over their own bodies.” See the link I posted earlier.

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          you do realize it’s 2012 and not 1965 right ?

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          Yeah, I already have. You’re hung up on your 40+ year old sources and propaganda — which is why I’m laughing at you. You’re not very bright. No offense. 

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    Anyway, it’s been real, y’all, truly.

    If any of you actually want to have an educational conversation on the matter without disregarding the factual definitions of the terms being used, you know where to find me:

    http://www.chelseahoffman.com/2012/06/lacking-logic-when-people-compare.html 

    http://www.chelseahoffman.com/2012/05/down-syndrome-and-abortion-personal.html 

    Let’s try to use a little intelligence and common sense whilst discussing this topic. The moment someone compares a simple abortion to Nazi Germany and Hitler’s use of MACRO EUGENICS, the entire point of discussing it becomes moot because said person has already discredited his/herself entirely before it could even begin. 

    :) 

    • liveaction

      Chelsea, you miss the point that some people – quite a lot, in fact – disagree with eugenics in general. We don’t agree with “weeding out” people for any reason. Each person, no matter their race, gender, disability, etc. has the equal right to life. Eugenics – in whatever form it comes – misses this essential point.

  • Stella McLeod

    I see Chelsea wants to frame the debate. According to her any quotes provided must be 1. from the USA; 2. from “neutral” sources (but only ones she approves of); 3.  from 2012.
    Why does Chelsea want to frame the debate? Could it be that she is aware that her arguments are not based on truth; that they actually arise from an earlier framing of the abortion debate:

    ‘In marketing wars, the party
    that frames the terms of the debate almost always wins. And the early abortion
    marketers brilliantly succeeded in doing exactly that  diverting attention away from the core issues
    of exactly what abortion does to both the unborn child and the mother, and
    focusing the debate instead on a newly created issue: “choice.” No longer was the morality of killing the
    unborn at issue, but rather, “who decides.”

    The original abortion-rights
    slogans from the early ’70s  they remain
    virtual articles of faith and rallying cries of the “pro-choice”
    movement to this day were “Freedom of choice” and “Women must
    have control over their own bodies.”

    Bernard Nathanson, M.D.,
    co-founder of pro-abortion NARAL

    “I
    remember laughing when we made those slogans up”, reminiscing about the early days of
    the abortion-rights movement in the late ’60s and early ’70s. “We were looking for some sexy, catchy
    slogans to capture public opinion. They were very cynical slogans then, just as
    all of these slogans today are very, very cynical.”‘

    http://www.unitypublishing.com/Moral/SellingAbortion.htm (And I am not apologising for my source material.)

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      I’m not framing a debate. I’m pointing out how weak your arguments are.

      You guys can only seem to share grossly outdated medical sources or biased information from apparently only one canadian doctor…

      This isn’t the united states of canada.. it’s the united states of america and what some wingnut in the great white north thinks has nothing to do with how the laws of the land operate here. 

      So I guess since you’re going to share only sources from the mid 1960s, we might as well share the outdated sources on down’s syndrome from then too? huh? you know, back when people with DS were referred to as “trainables” ???

      0_o more proof that certain people just do not possess logic or common sense. You’re using grossly outdated medical literature to try to back up your point, but you know that two can play that game. I can use the 1960s references about down’s syndrome, special X, triploidy or other anomalies which indicate far WORSE what I think and belief. 

      or while we’re at it…let’s share some of the women’s health articles and sources from the 1960s when housewives got voluntary lobotomies to deal with the depressing life of being housewives?

      I’m actually laughing my ass off OUT LOUD right now….

      • Stella McLeod

        Going by what I saw of the first minute or so of the video, isn’t this the method that Planned Parenthood and SIECUS now recommend for teaching school-age students? Possibly even those still at pre-school. I’ll leave you to search for the relevant UNFPA documents that I have read.

        At least all those “trainable” people had the opportunity to be born in the first place, something you are keen to deny people with  intellectual disabilities who happen to have an extra chromosome.

        By the way what was so “grossly outdated about the animations of fetal development that I shared? That was from a current pregnancy website, chosen because it appeared to be neutral. But I suspect you don’t like to be reminded that when women are pregnant they are carrying a baby. Perhaps you would care to share your approved, neutral, up to date source of medical literature pertaining to fetal development?

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          do we call them trainables anymore? 

          isn’t that like calling them r-tards (a word I hate and will not even spell because it’s so offensive to me) 

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            PS — its’ more the UCEDD’s thing than PP… just letting you know.. You should probably know this stuff if you’re going to be raising afflicted children/adults.

            When women get pregnant they are carrying an embryo (which forms from a zygote and then a blastocyst) and then a fetus.. Not a “baby”. A fetus isn’t a baby until it is birthed.

            This is basic biology. 

          • Stella McLeod

            Still waiting for that link to a neutral, medical website that describes in detail, preferably with pictures, the development of a newly conceived human from conception. Or is the basic outline above the best you can do?

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            Again, pay attention.

          • Stella McLeod

             Strange that you are offended by certain words but apparently not offended, indeed actually welcome, the possibility that people with Down syndrome will be eliminated. The r word means “delayed”. Is that really so much worse than saying “developmental disorder”? There actually are a whole line of words associated with describing people with intellectual disabilities that were once respectable medical terms but are now used as insults, e.g. “moron” and “idiot”. Language changes.

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          also.. it’s a shame that you think that video is still “accurate enough” — when there are far better techniques at teaching children/disabled adults about the “birds and the bees”…

          http://www.hsri.org/files/NCRI/Impact_newsletter.pdf 

          Again, this is why you can’t really be taken that seriously.. *SMH* I’m running circles around you and you appear to be too oblivious to even notice.

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      as long as you desperately grasp hold of propaganda and falsities, your cause will NEVER hold any weight or credibility;; just remember that ;) 

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      http://www.cdadc.com/ (history of down’s syndrome)
      So let’s use some more half-century-old sources, Einstein.  Maybe you can dig something up from the 1700s about bloodletting and purging of demons while you’re at it!

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    @a9cfdd8200779dec1c44ff1c08304d04:disqus I recommend using search.edu if you want anyone to ever take you seriously. And when I mean “anyone” I mean anyone that isn’t part of a fringe group of people who have never been successful in stopping a woman’s right to choose and probably never will. You obviously know how to read, so why not read something that isn’t 50 years old? That’s rather pathetic to look at 50 year old sources to try to back up your stance on something when we’re discussing medicine and anyone with an IQ over 76 knows that medical science evolves and changes. 

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/unsafe-abortion-rates-rise/story?id=15387487#.T86pwdXlNok 

    Abortion in the United States is SAFE and has been for *several* years. Of course, if it’s the year 1965 in your house, I might consider that you’re living in a time rift that defies all logic. That would explain SO much about your contributions to this discussion.

    http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/13/can-a-new-blood-test-make-babies-with-down-syndrome-disappear/?xid=huffpo-direct 

    and look how safe these tests for chromosomal abnormalities are getting? It’s being predicted that Down’s Syndrome might just disappear eventually. Which IS A GOOD THING. Just like it would be a good thing to rid the world of cancer, of diabetes, of anything that hinders the DEVELOPMENT of a human being. And by definition Down’s Syndrome is a developmental disorder that is NOT a good thing.

    Your sources from the 1960s say FAR worse about people affected by Down’s….so you might want to consider changing your tactics. You don’t have to apologize for being ignorant, because it’s obviously not your fault — until you refuse to remedy said ignorance and then it just turns into stupidity; which I have no sympathy for so don’t expect it. 

    • Stella McLeod

      I searched search.edu for “fetal development”. This was the first result on the list http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002398.htm I’m delighted to see that they refer to developing humans in the womb as babies. I rest my case.

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        I’d read the wording a little more closely if I were you ;) 

        (lol)

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        http://www.livestrong.com/article/256004-when-does-the-fetus-become-a-baby/

        0_o

        (p.s. Livestrong only uses credible sources for their work, being in partnership with the Livestrong foundation, it has to) 

        • Stella McLeod

          Reading the wording a little more closely I can see the word baby used six times referring to the early stages of pregnancy:

           ”This article discusses how a human baby is conceived and how the baby develops inside the mother’s womb.”

          “…the lining of the uterus has grown and is ready to support a baby.”
          “[EMBRYO] There is rapid growth, and the baby’s main external features begin to
          take form. It is during this critical period (most of the first
          trimester) that the growing baby is most susceptible to damage. The
          following can interfere with the baby’s development…”Read more: http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002398.htm#ixzz1x3gCs1hc

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            pop quiz:

            Is a baby a:

            a. zygote
            b. blastocyst 
            c. embryo
            d. fetus 
            e. an infant or young child, especially one who is not yet able to walk or talk.

            does the development of a “baby” involve the process of a zygote developing into a blastocyst which develops into an embryo and then fetus before the “baby” is born?

            Again. Pay attention to the words and sentence structure. Reading comprehension is extremely important when you are discussing medical texts. Let’s assume you made it past high school — if you did, you had to have taken a health or AP biology class in your junior or senior year, right?  I would assume you passed English class since it’s required for a person to graduate high school. 

            *the DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS of a baby is not a baby.* Again, pay attention. Try to comprehend what you read before you get all wet in the pants over the sight of a word appearing. Your jubilance is premature and rather embarrassing. 

            http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/baby 

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/medlineplus/baby 

            http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3966 

            http://www.online-medical-dictionary.org/omd.asp?q=infant 

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            Here let me put it to you this way:

            A boxed cake mix has a picture of a cake on it. That’s because you can MAKE a cake OUT OF IT.

            Not until you add the eggs, oil and milk; however.

            When you mix these ingredients and pour it into the cake pan. Is it a cake yet? NO, but it is still the developmental process of the cake being the end product.

            Not until you bake the thing at 350 to 375 for 20 to 35 minutes do you actually have a cake. But the entire process is the baking of a cake.

            I hope the metaphor made more sense to you since it was less scientific. Again, I will reiterate that this is the same as the developmental process of a baby. You don’t have a baby until it comes out of the oven, even though the ingredients and baking process is all part of that baby’s development.

            Here’s another one for you, maybe this one will help you comprehend what you’re reading more effectively:

            When you build a house, you gather the lumber, the nails, the drywall, the stuff to make the foundation, etc etc. When you have all of these materials but the structure is not yet completed, is it a house? 

            some common sense would be great, thank you.

          • Stella McLeod

             And if you missed an ingredient or removed the cake from the oven early you would still have a cake, just not a perfect one. Wow!

            Thank you so much for explaining it in such simple terms that even I who trained as a health professional in the dim dark ages of the 1970s (gee, hope they’ve since burnt all those ancient biology text books!) and who actually have personally experienced pregnancy and birth can understand.

            By the way also a good analogy for why there is a Creator God. Thanks:)

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            you’re missing the point. again.. but that’s not at all surprising in the least. I’ve come to expect that much from you at this point. 

            Again… wrap your mind around that post and what it was in response to. This particular response wasn’t about down’s syndrome as it was about your blatant lack of comprehension of even the most basic biological knowledge. Something 9th graders in modern high schools understand with ease.

            But just for the record — if you don’t put eggs in a cake — it doesn’t rise. YOU might want to eat your flat runny cake batter that didn’t rise, but don’t expect anyone else to be okay with their ruined recipe. Some people have higher standards in life, and some people have higher standards in the cake they eat. If you forget flour, you don’t have a cake, but a disgusting quiche-like mess — again, you’re free to eat that garbage, but don’t expect anyone else to.

            Your attempt at being clever not only didnt fit in this particular discussion, but it failed.. blew up right in your face.

            Its mind blowing how stupid you are. :( 

        • Stella McLeod

           So sorry, just read your livestrong link and discovered that under
          Current Scientific Information it says
          “Visualization
          technologies like ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging have
          greatly increased our knowledge of prenatal development. Yet science
          still defines conception as the beginning of LIFE, at least in the
          biological sense.” (emphasis added)

          Then there is this, written by a DOCTOR:

          “Donna J. Harrison, MD, president of the American Association of Pro Life
          Obstetricians and Gynecologists, argues that if the prenatal being “is
          nourished and protected, it will proceed uninterrupted through the
          developmental stages of embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, teen,
          adult and aged adult: one continuous existence… The real argument in
          the abortion debate is whether or not this human being is a ‘person,’
          with all the…protections of ‘personhood.’” She compares the exclusion
          of prenatal beings from personhood to the exclusion of
          African-Americans. Other pro-lifers connect the exclusion of prenatal
          life forms from personhood to the exclusion of other groups, such as
          women, Latino/as, Native Americans, people with disabilities, LGBT
          (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgendered) persons, the poor, and death row
          prisoners.”
          Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/256004-when-does-the-fetus-become-a-baby/#ixzz1x4tTAQvPGreat link. Thanks Chelsea.

    • Mike B Sullivan

       Those links are medically baised. They are fundamentaly flawed as they see a person defined by their medical situation, not as a human being. It is the same bias you are presenting.

  • Mike B Sullivan

    Chelsea Hoffman shows her bias against those with Down syndrome with her relentless attempts to frame the discussion in her own biased terms. It’s quite interesting reading her posts, her careful avoidance of questions and inability to respond to a point that she doesn’t agree with and attempts to discredit any view she doesn’t agree with, not answer a question and try to reframe the discussion in her own terms. It’s nothing new, classical old eugenicsts tricks worthy of Sanger.

    The weakness of Chelsea’s “arguments” speak volumes for themselves and reflect her own world view towards those with Down syndrome. Her offensive statements about others can be simply seen as her own bias to others, in the same way that those who speak about the basic humann dignity of those with defend the Down syndrome

    • Mike B Sullivan

      … Typo! In the same way that the statements of those who speak of love for the Down syndrome community and uphold their right to dignity reflect their world view.

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      so much with presenting facts to counter facts, huh? 

      • Mike B Sullivan

         I did present a fact. That your attitude reflects your own bias.

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          No, you presented ad hominem attacks and refused to “rebut” anything said in this discussion with facts.

          Again, you’re only proving the reason why 90%+ women side with the very point I’ve been making all along. Your arguments are so weak that you have to result to personal attacks on someone who is producing factual sources that are credible and modern (key word MODERN lol) to back up an opinion. 

          It’s rather pathetic, really. 

          • Mike B Sullivan

             Ad hominem attacks? “Pathetic”, “a world without Down’s syndrome would be a great place”, “bitterness harbored by the parents of defected children”, “Are you blind as well as ignorant”…..

            I see your point.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            To call someone Hitler when your views are in fact directly in line with nazi fascism (robbing the rights to choose from parents) is “pathetic.”

            To blatantly encourage abortion of healthy fetuses and the forced pregnancies of unhealthy fetuses is “ignorant and blind (of reality).”

            Yes, a world without developmental disorders would be a better place. Do you think a world of defects, heart disease, spinal bifida, compression, etc etc is better on the contrast? 

            0_o 
            In place of science fact, the only thing you know how to do is post quotes from nazi literature and accuse people who actually have more education and intelligence than you of being eugenicists. IMHO, it shows a complete lack of education on your part, no comprehension skills, lack of logic and an emotional quotient that indicates you were either hugged too much or not enough as a child.

            You lose.

            buhbye now. ;) 

          • Queen Bee

            Chelsea, I’m sorry, but I have read much of what you have posted and your “facts” are abhorrently outdated. Some of the conditions you list aren’t even tested for anymore. In all that I have read, you have failed to produce any credible credentials qualifying anything you say as more than an opinion. An opinion that has clearly gained more attention than is deserved. And, yes, I read your credentials page on your blog and I must say that the parent of a child with Down Syndrome is far more qualified to give information on DS than a female who has never had a child let alone a disabled one. Please stick to your area of expertice with your psychics and ghost whisperers and leave parenting to the people qualified to give advice.

          • KinderThanYou

            Agreed.

          • KinderThanYou

            You are fucking crazy.

          • Sass

            Pathetic: synonymous with Chelsea Hoffman, who relies on half-truths and insults to get blog hits!

      • NirwenElf

        Chelsea, have you ever had dinner with a family that has a child with Down syndrome? If not, I’d like to invite you to dinner in my home so you can meet my son, who will be 2 in July and has Down syndrome. I think you would be pleasantly surprised.

        Aborting babies with Down syndrome simply because they may have a severe disability is the same as aborting a ‘typical’ child because they may have something wrong with them. EVERY parent has a fear that something will go wrong with their child at some point, whether it be in the womb or not. Children with a typical number of chromosomes can and do end up with something ‘wrong’ with them – Muscular Distrophy, Autism, cancer, Cerebral Palsy, heart defects, etc etc etc. Are you saying every parent who has a fear that their child will not turn out ‘normal’ and ‘healthy’ should terminate their pregnancy? If that happened, the human race would go extinct in a generation because every child would be aborted!

        Life is not about perfection, and never should be. Life is about the adventure and about enjoying every minute you have. My son is the joy of my life. I couldn’t imagine life without him. I shudder to think missing out on his life simply because I felt that he was imperfect. He is perfect in his own way, and has enriched my life and my family’s life beyond anything we could have anticipated.

      • Sass

        Here’s a fact Chelsea: you’re a chump.

      • Sass

        Oh and another fact: you’re a liar. You’re listed as a parent but you have stated you are in fact not on your craptastic blog. A bit creepy if you ask me.

      • Sass

        Oh my bad, you are a parent. So sorry (for your children, that is).

    • Sasra

      Mike,
      As a parent of a child with DS I could not agree with you more, I have gone a few rounds with her in the past and it appears she does not have the intelligence or the knowledge to respond. I wonder what these poor people/ children with a little extra chromosome ever did to her that she Hates them soo much.
      And Mike, thank you

    • Jean

      After doing some basic internet research on the subject “Chelsea Hoffman” I have a strong suspicion that she is afflicted with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

      Thus making any attempt to communicate with her will result in you scratching your head with out the ability for her to feel empathy the subject of eugenics and abortion or a value of ones life is impossible for her to see logic, these things are not part of her DNA. One might argue she is a “broken person”.

      Symptoms of this disorder include, but are not limited to:
      Reacts to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliationMay take advantage of others to reach their own goals    (this is proven by her interjecting herself into lives of people who have had family members go missing or murdered, exploiting them in the name of a “criminal profiler”)Tends to exaggerate their own importance, achievements, and talents    (we see this in her bio’s and her claims to be a “novelist”, I may be wrong but a novel is typically longer than 65-200 pgs)Imagines unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance   (we see this in her responses and constant implication that she is more intelligant than others; currently holds ZERO degrees)Requires constant attention and positive reinforcement from others   (we see this in her obsesive need for attention and her inablity to walk away from this blog :) )Easily becomes jealousLacks empathy and disregards the feelings of others   ( most obvious of all)Obsessed with oneself   (self explanitory, and obvious to all, and if I had to guess which is all I will do considering there is no way in hell I will pay the $3 to read her “novels”, her stories are about herself or her alter ego)Mainly pursues selfish goalsTrouble keeping healthy relationshipsIs easily hurt and rejectedSets unrealistic goalsWants “the best” of everythingAppears as tough-minded or unemotionalIf there were a prenatal DX for this abnormality I think that we would not be having this converstation.

      I feel that each person even ms. hoffman has a place in this world, even if it is to show the rest of us we are blessed to not be afflicted with this disorder.

      The best thing we can do is make sure that this “broken” person is not rewarded for her diahrea of the mouth and boycott her blog, the rest is in gods hands.

      I pray for you Ms. Hoffman, and I pray that you are unable to concieve a child, there is no child that deserves to be condemed to a life with a narcissitic parent.

       

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    Where are the sources @b454a456c96f7e45dae00e67fd8798ae:disqus and @a9cfdd8200779dec1c44ff1c08304d04:disqus I see a lot of “chelsea doesn’t blah blah blah” but the only sources I’ve seen come from you two are outdated medical sources from the 1960s, or opinionated nonsense from Canada. Lol, and each time it’s in response to my modern, current, EDU approved references. Isn’t that interesting?

    *yawn*

    Lemme paste this here since reading is evidently not our strong suit (by our, I mean yours) 
    http://www.chelseahoffman.com/2012/06/lacking-logic-when-people-compare.html

    Did the title of this post grab your attention? Good.It’s being posted as a way to educate those who need it, as well as a response to so many of the comments I’ve been getting over the past week regarding my views on choosing abortion over the diagnosis of Trisomy 21, or Down’s Syndrome. While it’s reported that a statistical majority of women choose abortion when given this diagnosis, it appears that those who oppose it are rather loud and boisterous in their activism. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as everyone should take up a cause they believe in, but when you’re ignorant you can only do your cause more harm than good. (read more below)It  is absolutely ignorant to refer to everything one disagrees with as nazi-like or somehow pertaining to Adolf Hitler. The super-far-left referred to former President G.W. Bush as “Hitler” — and it appears that the name has simply become a watered down insult flung out by those who lack the substance to piece together an argument worth listening to and considering.”You don’t share my ideologies? Well, you are no better than Hitler, you fascist!”(insert dramatic eye-roll here, please)I do not bother responding to such comments, but after so many times of being accused of harnessing “eugenics” and being literally called Hitler, I feel maybe it’s time to make a post sharing some simple educational resources and definitions as well as a clarification on my stances. I hardly believe this attempt will be fruitful, for I even tried explaining myself in the comments section of this article; to which a couple of posters still misdefined “eugenics” and stuck to the name-calling — well isn’t that just mature and stable! That was sarcasm of course.So what is eugenics? In short: Eugenics is the science of improving the human population through controlled breeding. Many people connect this applied science to the Nazi movement, headed by Adolf Hitler. However, it’s far older than that. It simply took on a rather dark veil once Hitler shat all over science with his abominable ideals of what the “ideal race” would be. Hitler’s vision was a perverse, twisted mutation of eugenics — pun intended. Eugenics can be both good and bad, you see. It’s a neutral concept. Many things could be considered “eugenic” to the human race, but the sad thing is that passionate activists, for whatever social causes they support, tend to latch onto only the most negative connotations. In fact, some people are downright ignorant over the fact that they are stared in the face by eugenics of varied sorts every day. Education against incestuous relationships is considered a “eugenic” force in preventing the copulation of family members resulting in defected offspring. We all know by now that diddling in your own gene pool ends  in less-than-positive results. The modernization of rural communities known for inbreeding is another form of eugenics. For example, J.B.S. Haldane stated that the “motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent.” – does this sound like a “negative” thing? 
    When a woman selects a husband based on the type of children he could help her conceive, she has committed a form of eugenics. Guess what, it’s scientifically proven that mammals (especially humans) select sexual and romantic partners based on the primal desire to mate. That leftover bit of nature inside of us wants to choose a strong mate, a mate who can provide, a mate with strong genes to assure strong and healthy children. That’s eugenics, sweeties, and it’s natural. In fact, it’s so natural that it’s been a part of animal existence as far as recorded history allows us to study. By the very definition of the term, it’s eugenics because it’s still selective breeding. It’s “positive eugenics.” 
    Did you know that micro-eugenics is practiced by most of the religions in the world? For instance, when a young woman is married into a family chosen by her parents, they have micro-managed the way their daughter reproduces by choosing the bloodline that merges with their own family. This is done in just about any religion including Christianities many branches and Mormonism. When a young missionary courts someone handpicked from another LDS family in hopes of marrying and starting a family, she has committed micro-eugenics. Is it a bad thing? Choosing a kinship with which to breed is something that royalty has also practiced since the dawn of mankind. Damn those dirty eugenicists! So there you have. That’s basically the “positive” eugenics discussion in a nutshell. We all know what immediately comes to mind though when someone mentions it:You see that image? It’s a propaganda poster, obviously, but it expresses a sentiment that shines a light on negative eugenics, which was made a fear-mongering ideal by Hitler and his Nazi movement. This type of eugenics is referred to as Macro-Eugenics (negative!) Macro, as the word denotes, is on a large scale as opposed to micro, which is small scale. Macro-Eugenics involves the use of policies that affect entire populations of human beings. Forced sterilization, etc etc.; these are things that are negative and on a “macro” scale of eugenics. You get it? Down’s Syndrome and Abortion: Is it Eugenics? Absolutely not! After knowing precisely what eugenics is and how it’s applied, it truly is a ridiculous sight to see someone comparing abortion to it. Is abortion selective breeding? Nope. It is simply one of the results of breeding in general. Is abortion forced upon people in the United States? Nope. Does abortion in any way affect the gene pool or bloodline of the persons involved? Nope. Having an abortion isn’t going to magically change your genetic traits, nor is it going to change the genetic traits of your partner(s). Having an abortion doesn’t mean you’re next pregnancy is going to miraculously be any better, worse or different at all. Your future children will not inherit anything as a result of your past abortions. Get it?
    With all of this said, it really doesn’t need to be stated that choosing abortion over giving birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome is absolutely not eugenics. By the simplistic questions and answers above that should be certain. How is this “selective breeding?” It isn’t.  Furthermore as a consenting human adult in the United States you can commit micro-eugenics all you want. It’s your choice and nobody else has the right to tell you differently thanks to Roe v. Wade. If you want to seek a new partner in hopes of not creating another child afflicted by Trisomy 21, that is absolutely your choice. If you want to stop trying to reproduce altogether because of it, that is also your choice. You see, stopping yourself from breeding because of your genes, is in fact eugenics, but it’s self-decided and not forced upon anyone by the government. So therefore, it is still none of anybody’s business if you do so. Nonetheless, it is simply not eugenics to seek an abortion after receiving a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome. It is simply removing a defected fetus from your womb so as not to be pregnant any longer. Your chances of having another baby with Down’s Syndrome only increases after an initial Trisomy 21 diagnosis, so again, abortion is certainly not eugenics. You’re not improving your gene pool by aborting! You’re simply taking the child into consideration and preventing it from having to live a life of potential dependency and suffering. So what do you say to someone who calls you “Hitler” for supporting a woman’s right to choose this solution when given a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome? You could either link them to this article or simply ignore them. Because, to be completely honest, they aren’t trying to prove any points, nor are they trying to sway you’re opinion; they are simply being ugly and insulting and it’s usually based on a low form of intelligence that thinks anything and everything is eugenics and it all boils down to being called a fascist simply because you’re expressing your freedom of choice.Where is the logic in that? Fascism in and of itself is the most extreme of right-wing ideologies. Hitler was a fascist and believe it or not it’s really associated with conservatives and pro-lifers more than liberal-minded Americans. It is they who want to strip a woman of her right to seek medically necessary abortions. They are the ones who are intolerant of other ideals and the decisions others want to make with their own damn bodies.More lack of logic:Speaking of eugenics, some parents of children with Down’s Syndrome (as well as other loved ones) tend to make comments regarding the desire for others to have these type of children. Isn’t that eugenics? A desire to not only force a woman to carry said child, but to then hope that this is spread through their genes into their children, their children’s children, etc., etc., and so on? That is altering the gene pool, by the way. To be so extreme that one wishes Down’s Syndrome would become a normal integrated part of the human genome is rather sick to be honest — and is the same kind of eugenics practiced by the Nazi Movement. It’s called Macro-Eugenics, and it’s the purposeful desire to affect the entire human population with your ideals on what traits are “desirable.” And yet more lack of logic:”I’m pro-choice but you’re completely wrong for aborting a defected fetus, and you are like Hitler.” Well, I think comments like these pretty much sum it all up for us. Stop pretending to be pro-choice for the sake of attempting to win a debate. You make yourselves look like fools when you make statements similar to the one quoted above. Being pro-choice means you support a woman’s right to choose. Pro-choice doesn’t mean : ”I support your right to choose unless it’s to choose abortion.”  nor does it mean: ”I support your right to choose abortion as long as it’s for a reason I agree with.” Do you want to know another reason why this “I’m pro-choice, but…” comment is so absolutely stupid?Because it indicates that the person making the statement is more okay with completely healthy “normal” babies being aborted, but not defected fetuses that the body does try to flush from it in at least a quarter of Trisomy 21-related pregnancies. It indicates that you’d rather a completely in-shape fetus be flushed from a woman’s body than a fetus that has the potential to be severely impaired on physical and cognitive levels. It indicates that you’d rather a parent give birth to one of these chromosomal defects than a healthy baby. To be honest, comments like these that come from parents of Down’s Syndrome kids come across as nothing more than bitterness and the wishing of the same fate on others. And that is me being as blunt and honest as I can be on the matter. Wishing “the same fate on others” while only condoning the abortive process of healthy and viable fetuses that are free of defects – just reeks of eugenics. So again, this is a choice that should be left between parents and their doctors. Period. This isn’t something that any other person has the right to sway or influence others about, nor is it a platform for bullying people who simply want to see a better family tree for their names and bloodlines. As stated in the last article, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making the choice to NOT abort. In fact, good for you if you don’t seek an abortion — but to climb upon a soapbox and call those who do choose or support abortion in these situations eugenicists or Nazi-like, just makes you look very under-educated and extremely intolerant of a woman’s right to choose as well as a parent’s right to raise the quality of family that they want to raise.Fin.

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      P.s. — I think my last post, which is verbatem from my blog — says it better than could be argued at this point.

      And I rest my case. 

      • Sasra

        All I see is BLah blah blah, wei wei wei, I am a long winded you know what and boring, Snore.

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    In other words — It’s my opinion and I have a right to it. Who’s worse off? The person with an opinion or the person who throws a big crybaby party and writes up a blog about it?
    0_o 

    Do MY opinions somehow stop parents from making bad decisions? Do MY opinions somehow validate some other person’s actions. Nope. They’re my opinions and I’m entitled to them. They’re not going anywhere and neither am I. So you all can either cry about my opinions or move on with your lives and fantasize about the fascist world you want to live in in which someone isn’t allowed to have an opinion that differs from your world of broken reality and over emotional nonsense. Because that’s literally as far as any of you can get. None of you will ever be able to stop opinions from existing, nor can any of you force the truth of medical fact from being taught to expectant mothers.

    It’s a sad world out there, but you have to simply just deal with it. Other people are going to have differing views. You’re going to have to just deal with it. Some people are going to think that you’re idiotic, and that’s something you’re just going to have to deal with. Just like I have to deal with the fact that I am debating against people who haven’t the first grasp on human biology to be able to argue “infant” versus “zygote”. Just like I have to deal with the fact that some people dont like me. I’m obviously still here, and still kicking. So again, just get over it. Because until you do, you’re serving as nothing more than troll bait. 

    Seriously. 

    lol.

    • Stella McLeod

       Chelsea, I could say exactly the same about you. Actually our individual opinions do make a difference, so I’m just hoping more people share my opinion that humans should be respected regardless of their chromosomal and DNA makeup and granted the right to life from conception until natural death.

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        like I said — your opinion doesn’t coincide with medical/biological fact — that is why it still remains that the vast majority of women listen to THEIR DOCTORS and not people who can’t produce a credible source from the same era in which our generation lives. 

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        opinions should be educated, and yours are unfortunately not at all (you’ve proven this so well that it’s been seen by 100s of people) 

        That’s why doctors educate expecting mothers of what lies in store and what it means to have a chromosomal defect. That’s why most mothers display the common sense of paying attention to medical science and not the fringe group of people who should be spending more time making tinfoil hats than preaching against medical science. 

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    the R word is used to mock mentally disadvantaged people — not unborn fetuses that feel no pain and have no emotions ;) 

    As stated probably at least 50 times throughout many of my comments — I’ve no interest in the living. The living deserve rights and to be treated with dignity; whether they be living with disability or not. The “N” word means different things too, but I don’t like it. The two “F” words mean random things as well, and I would still prefer not to use them when in regards to people.

    You know, PEOPLE.

    Not the non-sentient. 

    People with down’s syndrome aren’t a race of people. They’re just people afflicted by a condition that hinders their development on a wide varying scale of degrees. A world without Down’s Syndrome would be a great place, but that starts with future generations and not the ones that are alive.

    Do try to understand that eliminating a chromosomal abnormality in the chromosomes where it starts has nothing to do with offing living people.

    But something tells me you already knew that, but you’re just making ad hominem statements out of the weakness of your quasi-argument.

    *sigh* 

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    Pay attention; I’ve been posting links all day.

    Are you blind as well as ignorant? :(  @stellamcleod

    • Stella McLeod

       I can only assume you prefer to remain in your prejudiced, offensive views of people with Down syndrome. “A world without Down’s Syndrome would be a great place, but that starts with future generations and not the ones that are alive.”

      I shudder to think of a world where your view is dominant, especially if you are as educated and as intelligent as you claim to be. I know you don’t like us recalling Nazi Germany, but the reality was that eliminating the live, already born, people with Down syndrome did not make Germany a better place. In fact the methods used were later used to eliminate other people that Hitler thought would improve Germany. Strangely the rest of the world wasn’t quite so enamoured of his views back then. I sincerely hope people like you stop and consider where this path lead last time round. Please don’t rebut with, Hitler was against abortion” because he wasn’t when it came to races he despised.

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    and why would you wish a chromosomal abnormality on others? I find that disgusting. 

    the sheer idea of chastising someone for NOT wanting a child afflicted with such an abnormality speaks volumes of the type of bitterness harbored by the parents of defected children :( 

    • Stella McLeod

       We are not wishing a chromosomal abnormality on others, we are just defending the life of people who are conceived with an extra chromosome through no fault of their own or anyone else’s. If there is cell division, then there is LIFE.
      “”Every time a sperm cell and
      ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to
      live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.” (E.
      L. Potter and J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd ed., Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii.)

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        then defend the lives of all the unborn instead of just one sect — IMHO it’s silly to behave as though a defected fetus is more ‘normal’ than a normal one :|

        Also, I don’t waste my time on medical sources that are 30-40-50 years old. Again, this is the year 2012. I know it might be hard to grasp this concept, but medical science is ever evolving and every year new things are discovered/amplified/enhanced/altered as the years go by.

        0_o really, now, this shouldn’t be an alien concept on someone who claims to be raising people with medical conditions. What other tactics do you rely upon that are so outdated? Personally, I hope you’re taking better care of your family than that. From the 50s to the 80s women were heating up their baby bottles wrong, riding their children around without car seats and getting lobotomies to release the tension of being housewives. Autism was disregarded as a child “being a brat” and kids were “seen and not heard.”  

        Please tell me you’re truly not relying on medical sources from those eras? *facepalm* Children with disabilities require a lot more care than average children. You must take into consideration that there are tons of medical conditions that you simply cannot treat as though it is the year 1950 or 1960 or 1970 or even 1980. You have the internet; I suggest you make better use of it if you’re so equipped. 

        • Stella McLeod

           Strange, but wasn’t abortion made legal 40 years ago? You know back when all these incredibly ignorant people lived;) Hopefully 40 years from now people will look back in disgust at ignorance of those who ignored the evidence that they were killing LIVING, UNIQUE human beings.

          “When asking the question,
          “When does human life begin?” one first needs to define the properties
          that are characteristic of any living organism. A scientific and factual
          answer to this controversial question will separate the characteristics
          of living and nonliving organisms and then determine what category the
          fertilized egg falls into. An answer to the aforementioned question will
          answer the following question: Does the fertilized egg possess the same
          properties of all living organisms?”

          Read the rest to see how a fertilized egg and
          the resulting zygote, embryo, and fetus all meet the criteria.
          http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hammer_m/life.htm

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            your logic is extremely flawed, Stella. 

            I don’t mean that with any disrespect this time. But I really suggest seeking adult secondary education to improve on this. Your arguments are all non sequitter and they add nothing to the discussion other than to make others with common sense *facepalm*…

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            and also, you danced so poorly around that question that you only further proved the point I was trying to make — thank you for that.

            I, again, rest my case. 

    • grdawg

      Wow!  You would really presume to accuse all parents of “defected children” (which is an unkind term, by the way) of being bitter.  Some of the ones I know are the happiest and best people you could ask to meet.  You are being incredibly unfair and presumptuous.

  • Mike B Sullivan

     

    “He who is bodily and mentally not sound and deserving may
    not perpetuate this misfortune in the bodies of his children. The völkische
    [people's] state has to perform the most gigantic rearing-task here. One day,
    however, it will appear as a deed greater than the most victorious wars of our
    present bourgeois era”.

    Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, 1924

    “A
    world without Down’s Syndrome would be a great place, but that starts with
    future generations and not the ones that are alive.”

    Chelsea
    Hoffman, This blog, 2012

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      Again (since you can’t read so well):

      Did the title of this post grab your attention? Good.It’s being posted as a way to educate those who need it, as well as a response to so many of the comments I’ve been getting over the past week regarding my views on choosing abortion over the diagnosis of Trisomy 21, or Down’s Syndrome. While it’s reported that a statistical majority of women choose abortion when given this diagnosis, it appears that those who oppose it are rather loud and boisterous in their activism. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as everyone should take up a cause they believe in, but when you’re ignorant you can only do your cause more harm than good. (read more below)It  is absolutely ignorant to refer to everything one disagrees with as nazi-like or somehow pertaining to Adolf Hitler. The super-far-left referred to former President G.W. Bush as “Hitler” — and it appears that the name has simply become a watered down insult flung out by those who lack the substance to piece together an argument worth listening to and considering.”You don’t share my ideologies? Well, you are no better than Hitler, you fascist!”(insert dramatic eye-roll here, please)I do not bother responding to such comments, but after so many times of being accused of harnessing “eugenics” and being literally called Hitler, I feel maybe it’s time to make a post sharing some simple educational resources and definitions as well as a clarification on my stances. I hardly believe this attempt will be fruitful, for I even tried explaining myself in the comments section of this article; to which a couple of posters still misdefined “eugenics” and stuck to the name-calling — well isn’t that just mature and stable! That was sarcasm of course.So what is eugenics? In short: Eugenics is the science of improving the human population through controlled breeding. Many people connect this applied science to the Nazi movement, headed by Adolf Hitler. However, it’s far older than that. It simply took on a rather dark veil once Hitler shat all over science with his abominable ideals of what the “ideal race” would be. Hitler’s vision was a perverse, twisted mutation of eugenics — pun intended. Eugenics can be both good and bad, you see. It’s a neutral concept. Many things could be considered “eugenic” to the human race, but the sad thing is that passionate activists, for whatever social causes they support, tend to latch onto only the most negative connotations. In fact, some people are downright ignorant over the fact that they are stared in the face by eugenics of varied sorts every day. Education against incestuous relationships is considered a “eugenic” force in preventing the copulation of family members resulting in defected offspring. We all know by now that diddling in your own gene pool ends  in less-than-positive results. The modernization of rural communities known for inbreeding is another form of eugenics. For example, J.B.S. Haldane stated that the “motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent.” – does this sound like a “negative” thing? 
      When a woman selects a husband based on the type of children he could help her conceive, she has committed a form of eugenics. Guess what, it’s scientifically proven that mammals (especially humans) select sexual and romantic partners based on the primal desire to mate. That leftover bit of nature inside of us wants to choose a strong mate, a mate who can provide, a mate with strong genes to assure strong and healthy children. That’s eugenics, sweeties, and it’s natural. In fact, it’s so natural that it’s been a part of animal existence as far as recorded history allows us to study. By the very definition of the term, it’s eugenics because it’s still selective breeding. It’s “positive eugenics.” 
      Did you know that micro-eugenics is practiced by most of the religions in the world? For instance, when a young woman is married into a family chosen by her parents, they have micro-managed the way their daughter reproduces by choosing the bloodline that merges with their own family. This is done in just about any religion including Christianities many branches and Mormonism. When a young missionary courts someone handpicked from another LDS family in hopes of marrying and starting a family, she has committed micro-eugenics. Is it a bad thing? Choosing a kinship with which to breed is something that royalty has also practiced since the dawn of mankind. Damn those dirty eugenicists! So there you have. That’s basically the “positive” eugenics discussion in a nutshell. We all know what immediately comes to mind though when someone mentions it:You see that image? It’s a propaganda poster, obviously, but it expresses a sentiment that shines a light on negative eugenics, which was made a fear-mongering ideal by Hitler and his Nazi movement. This type of eugenics is referred to as Macro-Eugenics (negative!) Macro, as the word denotes, is on a large scale as opposed to micro, which is small scale. Macro-Eugenics involves the use of policies that affect entire populations of human beings. Forced sterilization, etc etc.; these are things that are negative and on a “macro” scale of eugenics. You get it? Down’s Syndrome and Abortion: Is it Eugenics? Absolutely not! After knowing precisely what eugenics is and how it’s applied, it truly is a ridiculous sight to see someone comparing abortion to it. Is abortion selective breeding? Nope. It is simply one of the results of breeding in general. Is abortion forced upon people in the United States? Nope. Does abortion in any way affect the gene pool or bloodline of the persons involved? Nope. Having an abortion isn’t going to magically change your genetic traits, nor is it going to change the genetic traits of your partner(s). Having an abortion doesn’t mean you’re next pregnancy is going to miraculously be any better, worse or different at all. Your future children will not inherit anything as a result of your past abortions. Get it?
      With all of this said, it really doesn’t need to be stated that choosing abortion over giving birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome is absolutely not eugenics. By the simplistic questions and answers above that should be certain. How is this “selective breeding?” It isn’t.  Furthermore as a consenting human adult in the United States you can commit micro-eugenics all you want. It’s your choice and nobody else has the right to tell you differently thanks to Roe v. Wade. If you want to seek a new partner in hopes of not creating another child afflicted by Trisomy 21, that is absolutely your choice. If you want to stop trying to reproduce altogether because of it, that is also your choice. You see, stopping yourself from breeding because of your genes, is in fact eugenics, but it’s self-decided and not forced upon anyone by the government. So therefore, it is still none of anybody’s business if you do so. Nonetheless, it is simply not eugenics to seek an abortion after receiving a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome. It is simply removing a defected fetus from your womb so as not to be pregnant any longer. Your chances of having another baby with Down’s Syndrome only increases after an initial Trisomy 21 diagnosis, so again, abortion is certainly not eugenics. You’re not improving your gene pool by aborting! You’re simply taking the child into consideration and preventing it from having to live a life of potential dependency and suffering. So what do you say to someone who calls you “Hitler” for supporting a woman’s right to choose this solution when given a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome? You could either link them to this article or simply ignore them. Because, to be completely honest, they aren’t trying to prove any points, nor are they trying to sway you’re opinion; they are simply being ugly and insulting and it’s usually based on a low form of intelligence that thinks anything and everything is eugenics and it all boils down to being called a fascist simply because you’re expressing your freedom of choice.Where is the logic in that? Fascism in and of itself is the most extreme of right-wing ideologies. Hitler was a fascist and believe it or not it’s really associated with conservatives and pro-lifers more than liberal-minded Americans. It is they who want to strip a woman of her right to seek medically necessary abortions. They are the ones who are intolerant of other ideals and the decisions others want to make with their own damn bodies.More lack of logic:Speaking of eugenics, some parents of children with Down’s Syndrome (as well as other loved ones) tend to make comments regarding the desire for others to have these type of children. Isn’t that eugenics? A desire to not only force a woman to carry said child, but to then hope that this is spread through their genes into their children, their children’s children, etc., etc., and so on? That is altering the gene pool, by the way. To be so extreme that one wishes Down’s Syndrome would become a normal integrated part of the human genome is rather sick to be honest — and is the same kind of eugenics practiced by the Nazi Movement. It’s called Macro-Eugenics, and it’s the purposeful desire to affect the entire human population with your ideals on what traits are “desirable.” And yet more lack of logic:”I’m pro-choice but you’re completely wrong for aborting a defected fetus, and you are like Hitler.” Well, I think comments like these pretty much sum it all up for us. Stop pretending to be pro-choice for the sake of attempting to win a debate. You make yourselves look like fools when you make statements similar to the one quoted above. Being pro-choice means you support a woman’s right to choose. Pro-choice doesn’t mean : ”I support your right to choose unless it’s to choose abortion.”  nor does it mean: ”I support your right to choose abortion as long as it’s for a reason I agree with.” Do you want to know another reason why this “I’m pro-choice, but…” comment is so absolutely stupid?Because it indicates that the person making the statement is more okay with completely healthy “normal” babies being aborted, but not defected fetuses that the body does try to flush from it in at least a quarter of Trisomy 21-related pregnancies. It indicates that you’d rather a completely in-shape fetus be flushed from a woman’s body than a fetus that has the potential to be severely impaired on physical and cognitive levels. It indicates that you’d rather a parent give birth to one of these chromosomal defects than a healthy baby. To be honest, comments like these that come from parents of Down’s Syndrome kids come across as nothing more than bitterness and the wishing of the same fate on others. And that is me being as blunt and honest as I can be on the matter. Wishing “the same fate on others” while only condoning the abortive process of healthy and viable fetuses that are free of defects – just reeks of eugenics. So again, this is a choice that should be left between parents and their doctors. Period. This isn’t something that any other person has the right to sway or influence others about, nor is it a platform for bullying people who simply want to see a better family tree for their names and bloodlines. As stated in the last article, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making the choice to NOT abort. In fact, good for you if you don’t seek an abortion — but to climb upon a soapbox and call those who do choose or support abortion in these situations eugenicists or Nazi-like, just makes you look very under-educated and extremely intolerant of a woman’s right to choose as well as a parent’s right to raise the quality of family that they want to raise.Fin.

      • Mike B Sullivan

         That says a lot about your bais against those with Down syndrome, but nothing about their basic human dignity.

        • Anonyme

          Um, that’s because we’re discussing fetuses, which don’t have their own “basic human dignity” because they’re still part of someone else’s body. Of course living, separate people with DS have “basic human dignity” that is to be respected and no one is saying anything else.

          • Mike B Sullivan

             The comment was in response to Hoffman saying “A world without Down’s Syndrome would be a great place”. That implies that such human beings are less desirable than others. It is offensive and hateful and reflects her own bias. All human beings have dignity. Hoffmans mindset is the same as those who throughout history have attempted to devalue  those they deem to be of less worth than themselves. But such attitudes only reflect themselves.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            the definition of dignity: the state or quality of being worthy of honor.

            to assume that a blastocyst’s “dignity” is threatened by keeping its future in mind and aborting it if it’s broken, well, is idiotic. 

            but consider the source.

            Got anything from that canadian doctor to counter that with? lol. 

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            precisely, but they’re too thick in the skulls to get it…

            no offense, but maybe there is a reason why their kids have down’s… they’re obviously lacking in cognitive development themselves.

            yes, that was rude, but it was also a very valid observation of the lack of cognitive skill here…

          • gene

            NO offense? You intended to offend people, it is your soul purpose to offend people by making a statement that you know is false. Your community college biology class taught you that the statement you made is false. I love it when you prove me right, in my observation that you are afflicted with NPD. I <3 you

          • Sasra

            So Chelsea besides blatant stupidity and ignorance what degree do you hold, I have a bachelor degree in science and my husband is an Aerospace engineer. I think we are intelligent people but  hey I guess according to you we “lack cognitive development” ourselves. I would love to see you explain this one?

          • KinderThanYou

            She’s crazy. Like mentally insane. She needs help.

          • KinderThanYou

            You are a piece of trash.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Terrence-BatonRougebeast-Milton/100001375534757 Terrence BatonRougebeast Milto

            ur dumb af

          • grdawg

            Actually, according to science, while a fetus is in his mother’s body, he is not part of her body.  His body is 100% a separate entity.  So, a fetus is a living, separate person.  This is especially obvious when you’re talking about a male baby.  A person cannot be both male and female at once, hence the separate people =)

      • Mike B Sullivan

         The only reason we are having this discussion is that it is advancing the cause of those who uphold the rights of the Down syndrome community and oppose eugenics.

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          again, learn the difference:

          Again (since you can’t read so well):Did the title of this post grab your attention? Good.It’s being posted as a way to educate those who need it, as well as a response to so many of the comments I’ve been getting over the past week regarding my views on choosing abortion over the diagnosis of Trisomy 21, or Down’s Syndrome. While it’s reported that a statistical majority of women choose abortion when given this diagnosis, it appears that those who oppose it are rather loud and boisterous in their activism. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as everyone should take up a cause they believe in, but when you’re ignorant you can only do your cause more harm than good. (read more below)It  is absolutely ignorant to refer to everything one disagrees with as nazi-like or somehow pertaining to Adolf Hitler. The super-far-left referred to former President G.W. Bush as “Hitler” — and it appears that the name has simply become a watered down insult flung out by those who lack the substance to piece together an argument worth listening to and considering.”You don’t share my ideologies? Well, you are no better than Hitler, you fascist!”(insert dramatic eye-roll here, please)I do not bother responding to such comments, but after so many times of being accused of harnessing “eugenics” and being literally called Hitler, I feel maybe it’s time to make a post sharing some simple educational resources and definitions as well as a clarification on my stances. I hardly believe this attempt will be fruitful, for I even tried explaining myself in the comments section of this article; to which a couple of posters still misdefined “eugenics” and stuck to the name-calling — well isn’t that just mature and stable! That was sarcasm of course.So what is eugenics? In short: Eugenics is the science of improving the human population through controlled breeding. Many people connect this applied science to the Nazi movement, headed by Adolf Hitler. However, it’s far older than that. It simply took on a rather dark veil once Hitler shat all over science with his abominable ideals of what the “ideal race” would be. Hitler’s vision was a perverse, twisted mutation of eugenics — pun intended. Eugenics can be both good and bad, you see. It’s a neutral concept. Many things could be considered “eugenic” to the human race, but the sad thing is that passionate activists, for whatever social causes they support, tend to latch onto only the most negative connotations. In fact, some people are downright ignorant over the fact that they are stared in the face by eugenics of varied sorts every day. Education against incestuous relationships is considered a “eugenic” force in preventing the copulation of family members resulting in defected offspring. We all know by now that diddling in your own gene pool ends  in less-than-positive results. The modernization of rural communities known for inbreeding is another form of eugenics. For example, J.B.S. Haldane stated that the “motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent.” – does this sound like a “negative” thing? When a woman selects a husband based on the type of children he could help her conceive, she has committed a form of eugenics. Guess what, it’s scientifically proven that mammals (especially humans) select sexual and romantic partners based on the primal desire to mate. That leftover bit of nature inside of us wants to choose a strong mate, a mate who can provide, a mate with strong genes to assure strong and healthy children. That’s eugenics, sweeties, and it’s natural. In fact, it’s so natural that it’s been a part of animal existence as far as recorded history allows us to study. By the very definition of the term, it’s eugenics because it’s still selective breeding. It’s “positive eugenics.” Did you know that micro-eugenics is practiced by most of the religions in the world? For instance, when a young woman is married into a family chosen by her parents, they have micro-managed the way their daughter reproduces by choosing the bloodline that merges with their own family. This is done in just about any religion including Christianities many branches and Mormonism. When a young missionary courts someone handpicked from another LDS family in hopes of marrying and starting a family, she has committed micro-eugenics. Is it a bad thing? Choosing a kinship with which to breed is something that royalty has also practiced since the dawn of mankind. Damn those dirty eugenicists! So there you have. That’s basically the “positive” eugenics discussion in a nutshell. We all know what immediately comes to mind though when someone mentions it:You see that image? It’s a propaganda poster, obviously, but it expresses a sentiment that shines a light on negative eugenics, which was made a fear-mongering ideal by Hitler and his Nazi movement. This type of eugenics is referred to as Macro-Eugenics (negative!) Macro, as the word denotes, is on a large scale as opposed to micro, which is small scale. Macro-Eugenics involves the use of policies that affect entire populations of human beings. Forced sterilization, etc etc.; these are things that are negative and on a “macro” scale of eugenics. You get it? Down’s Syndrome and Abortion: Is it Eugenics? Absolutely not! After knowing precisely what eugenics is and how it’s applied, it truly is a ridiculous sight to see someone comparing abortion to it. Is abortion selective breeding? Nope. It is simply one of the results of breeding in general. Is abortion forced upon people in the United States? Nope. Does abortion in any way affect the gene pool or bloodline of the persons involved? Nope. Having an abortion isn’t going to magically change your genetic traits, nor is it going to change the genetic traits of your partner(s). Having an abortion doesn’t mean you’re next pregnancy is going to miraculously be any better, worse or different at all. Your future children will not inherit anything as a result of your past abortions. Get it?With all of this said, it really doesn’t need to be stated that choosing abortion over giving birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome is absolutely not eugenics. By the simplistic questions and answers above that should be certain. How is this “selective breeding?” It isn’t.  Furthermore as a consenting human adult in the United States you can commit micro-eugenics all you want. It’s your choice and nobody else has the right to tell you differently thanks to Roe v. Wade. If you want to seek a new partner in hopes of not creating another child afflicted by Trisomy 21, that is absolutely your choice. If you want to stop trying to reproduce altogether because of it, that is also your choice. You see, stopping yourself from breeding because of your genes, is in fact eugenics, but it’s self-decided and not forced upon anyone by the government. So therefore, it is still none of anybody’s business if you do so. Nonetheless, it is simply not eugenics to seek an abortion after receiving a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome. It is simply removing a defected fetus from your womb so as not to be pregnant any longer. Your chances of having another baby with Down’s Syndrome only increases after an initial Trisomy 21 diagnosis, so again, abortion is certainly not eugenics. You’re not improving your gene pool by aborting! You’re simply taking the child into consideration and preventing it from having to live a life of potential dependency and suffering. So what do you say to someone who calls you “Hitler” for supporting a woman’s right to choose this solution when given a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome? You could either link them to this article or simply ignore them. Because, to be completely honest, they aren’t trying to prove any points, nor are they trying to sway you’re opinion; they are simply being ugly and insulting and it’s usually based on a low form of intelligence that thinks anything and everything is eugenics and it all boils down to being called a fascist simply because you’re expressing your freedom of choice.Where is the logic in that? Fascism in and of itself is the most extreme of right-wing ideologies. Hitler was a fascist and believe it or not it’s really associated with conservatives and pro-lifers more than liberal-minded Americans. It is they who want to strip a woman of her right to seek medically necessary abortions. They are the ones who are intolerant of other ideals and the decisions others want to make with their own damn bodies.More lack of logic:Speaking of eugenics, some parents of children with Down’s Syndrome (as well as other loved ones) tend to make comments regarding the desire for others to have these type of children. Isn’t that eugenics? A desire to not only force a woman to carry said child, but to then hope that this is spread through their genes into their children, their children’s children, etc., etc., and so on? That is altering the gene pool, by the way. To be so extreme that one wishes Down’s Syndrome would become a normal integrated part of the human genome is rather sick to be honest — and is the same kind of eugenics practiced by the Nazi Movement. It’s called Macro-Eugenics, and it’s the purposeful desire to affect the entire human population with your ideals on what traits are “desirable.” And yet more lack of logic:”I’m pro-choice but you’re completely wrong for aborting a defected fetus, and you are like Hitler.” Well, I think comments like these pretty much sum it all up for us. Stop pretending to be pro-choice for the sake of attempting to win a debate. You make yourselves look like fools when you make statements similar to the one quoted above. Being pro-choice means you support a woman’s right to choose. Pro-choice doesn’t mean : ”I support your right to choose unless it’s to choose abortion.”  nor does it mean: ”I support your right to choose abortion as long as it’s for a reason I agree with.” Do you want to know another reason why this “I’m pro-choice, but…” comment is so absolutely stupid?Because it indicates that the person making the statement is more okay with completely healthy “normal” babies being aborted, but not defected fetuses that the body does try to flush from it in at least a quarter of Trisomy 21-related pregnancies. It indicates that you’d rather a completely in-shape fetus be flushed from a woman’s body than a fetus that has the potential to be severely impaired on physical and cognitive levels. It indicates that you’d rather a parent give birth to one of these chromosomal defects than a healthy baby. To be honest, comments like these that come from parents of Down’s Syndrome kids come across as nothing more than bitterness and the wishing of the same fate on others. And that is me being as blunt and honest as I can be on the matter. Wishing “the same fate on others” while only condoning the abortive process of healthy and viable fetuses that are free of defects – just reeks of eugenics. So again, this is a choice that should be left between parents and their doctors. Period. This isn’t something that any other person has the right to sway or influence others about, nor is it a platform for bullying people who simply want to see a better family tree for their names and bloodlines. As stated in the last article, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making the choice to NOT abort. In fact, good for you if you don’t seek an abortion — but to climb upon a soapbox and call those who do choose or support abortion in these situations eugenicists or Nazi-like, just makes you look very under-educated and extremely intolerant of a woman’s right to choose as well as a parent’s right to raise the quality of family that they want to raise.Fin.

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      p.s. it’s really offensive to family members of holocaust survivors when your type continually water down the use of the word “nazi” and “hitler” — especially when it’s your cause that is more in line with nazi fascism than the freedom of choice. 

      Again, a sound education is key…. apparently those keys were misplaced.

      • Mike B Sullivan

         Not at all. I simply presented two quotes. People can draw their own conclusions about the similarities between them.

        It is offensive to suggest that a world without Down’s syndrome would be a great place. It is a mindset based in racial hygiene and the comparison is valid. It’s a bias against the inherant value of the lives of people with Down syndrome. People who know the origins of the holocast, set in place with the T4 programme against those with Down syndrome understand the mindset that you are presenting.

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          Again, Hitler forced eugenics

          in the US women have a choice.

          I think if you can’t discern the differences between the two very opposite concepts, you should seriously consider adult tutelage. 

          Remember, it was hitler who wanted to take away the choice… huh, look what you guys are representing? it’s pathetic! lol 

          I suggest goosestepping to a community college and learning more about the Nazisms that you’re displaying yourselves while accusing others of harnessing it!

      • Stella McLeod

         Chelsea, close relatives of mine were directly affected by events that Hitler and his Nazi government set in train. I have also studied history, including Nazi Germany and World War II. We are in no way watering down anything. Perhaps the expression “Never Again” means nothing to you. http://www.gonshaw.net/Holocaust.htm
        Your arrogance is breath taking.

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          then you should realize how ridiculous you’re being 

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            I have a reason to be arrogant, I’m dealing with people who have a gross lack of logic. :| I think you’d be arrogant to if you were talking to adults with the mental reasoning of school children…neglected school children.

            Of course the U.S. is very behind in science and math education.. so there is an excuse. 

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          and if you studied nazisms as much as you pretend online, you’d know all of the vast differences in eugenics and macro-eugenics, etc etc.

          Instead, you’ve displayed nothing but blindly ignorant comments and a total lack of ability to produce even a single source that backs up any of your far-out claims.

          The only source that was credible that you did manage to share, you misunderstood so terribly that literally had my whole household cracking up as well as some of my biology classmates. 

    • Sasra

      Mike, thank you for pointing this out to us, we have been boycotting her blog because she gets paid for her “opinion”. Chelsea I dare you to come say that to my face one day,  you’re to chicken and hide behind your keyboard like a coward.

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    Again (since you can’t read so well):
    Did the title of this post grab your attention? Good.It’s being posted as a way to educate those who need it, as well as a response to so many of the comments I’ve been getting over the past week regarding my views on choosing abortion over the diagnosis of Trisomy 21, or Down’s Syndrome. While it’s reported that a statistical majority of women choose abortion when given this diagnosis, it appears that those who oppose it are rather loud and boisterous in their activism. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, as everyone should take up a cause they believe in, but when you’re ignorant you can only do your cause more harm than good. (read more below)It  is absolutely ignorant to refer to everything one disagrees with as nazi-like or somehow pertaining to Adolf Hitler. The super-far-left referred to former President G.W. Bush as “Hitler” — and it appears that the name has simply become a watered down insult flung out by those who lack the substance to piece together an argument worth listening to and considering.”You don’t share my ideologies? Well, you are no better than Hitler, you fascist!”(insert dramatic eye-roll here, please)I do not bother responding to such comments, but after so many times of being accused of harnessing “eugenics” and being literally called Hitler, I feel maybe it’s time to make a post sharing some simple educational resources and definitions as well as a clarification on my stances. I hardly believe this attempt will be fruitful, for I even tried explaining myself in the comments section of this article; to which a couple of posters still misdefined “eugenics” and stuck to the name-calling — well isn’t that just mature and stable! That was sarcasm of course.So what is eugenics? In short: Eugenics is the science of improving the human population through controlled breeding. Many people connect this applied science to the Nazi movement, headed by Adolf Hitler. However, it’s far older than that. It simply took on a rather dark veil once Hitler shat all over science with his abominable ideals of what the “ideal race” would be. Hitler’s vision was a perverse, twisted mutation of eugenics — pun intended. Eugenics can be both good and bad, you see. It’s a neutral concept. Many things could be considered “eugenic” to the human race, but the sad thing is that passionate activists, for whatever social causes they support, tend to latch onto only the most negative connotations. In fact, some people are downright ignorant over the fact that they are stared in the face by eugenics of varied sorts every day. Education against incestuous relationships is considered a “eugenic” force in preventing the copulation of family members resulting in defected offspring. We all know by now that diddling in your own gene pool ends  in less-than-positive results. The modernization of rural communities known for inbreeding is another form of eugenics. For example, J.B.S. Haldane stated that the “motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent.” – does this sound like a “negative” thing? When a woman selects a husband based on the type of children he could help her conceive, she has committed a form of eugenics. Guess what, it’s scientifically proven that mammals (especially humans) select sexual and romantic partners based on the primal desire to mate. That leftover bit of nature inside of us wants to choose a strong mate, a mate who can provide, a mate with strong genes to assure strong and healthy children. That’s eugenics, sweeties, and it’s natural. In fact, it’s so natural that it’s been a part of animal existence as far as recorded history allows us to study. By the very definition of the term, it’s eugenics because it’s still selective breeding. It’s “positive eugenics.” Did you know that micro-eugenics is practiced by most of the religions in the world? For instance, when a young woman is married into a family chosen by her parents, they have micro-managed the way their daughter reproduces by choosing the bloodline that merges with their own family. This is done in just about any religion including Christianities many branches and Mormonism. When a young missionary courts someone handpicked from another LDS family in hopes of marrying and starting a family, she has committed micro-eugenics. Is it a bad thing? Choosing a kinship with which to breed is something that royalty has also practiced since the dawn of mankind. Damn those dirty eugenicists! So there you have. That’s basically the “positive” eugenics discussion in a nutshell. We all know what immediately comes to mind though when someone mentions it:You see that image? It’s a propaganda poster, obviously, but it expresses a sentiment that shines a light on negative eugenics, which was made a fear-mongering ideal by Hitler and his Nazi movement. This type of eugenics is referred to as Macro-Eugenics (negative!) Macro, as the word denotes, is on a large scale as opposed to micro, which is small scale. Macro-Eugenics involves the use of policies that affect entire populations of human beings. Forced sterilization, etc etc.; these are things that are negative and on a “macro” scale of eugenics. You get it? Down’s Syndrome and Abortion: Is it Eugenics? Absolutely not! After knowing precisely what eugenics is and how it’s applied, it truly is a ridiculous sight to see someone comparing abortion to it. Is abortion selective breeding? Nope. It is simply one of the results of breeding in general. Is abortion forced upon people in the United States? Nope. Does abortion in any way affect the gene pool or bloodline of the persons involved? Nope. Having an abortion isn’t going to magically change your genetic traits, nor is it going to change the genetic traits of your partner(s). Having an abortion doesn’t mean you’re next pregnancy is going to miraculously be any better, worse or different at all. Your future children will not inherit anything as a result of your past abortions. Get it?With all of this said, it really doesn’t need to be stated that choosing abortion over giving birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome is absolutely not eugenics. By the simplistic questions and answers above that should be certain. How is this “selective breeding?” It isn’t.  Furthermore as a consenting human adult in the United States you can commit micro-eugenics all you want. It’s your choice and nobody else has the right to tell you differently thanks to Roe v. Wade. If you want to seek a new partner in hopes of not creating another child afflicted by Trisomy 21, that is absolutely your choice. If you want to stop trying to reproduce altogether because of it, that is also your choice. You see, stopping yourself from breeding because of your genes, is in fact eugenics, but it’s self-decided and not forced upon anyone by the government. So therefore, it is still none of anybody’s business if you do so. Nonetheless, it is simply not eugenics to seek an abortion after receiving a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome. It is simply removing a defected fetus from your womb so as not to be pregnant any longer. Your chances of having another baby with Down’s Syndrome only increases after an initial Trisomy 21 diagnosis, so again, abortion is certainly not eugenics. You’re not improving your gene pool by aborting! You’re simply taking the child into consideration and preventing it from having to live a life of potential dependency and suffering. So what do you say to someone who calls you “Hitler” for supporting a woman’s right to choose this solution when given a diagnosis of Down’s Syndrome? You could either link them to this article or simply ignore them. Because, to be completely honest, they aren’t trying to prove any points, nor are they trying to sway you’re opinion; they are simply being ugly and insulting and it’s usually based on a low form of intelligence that thinks anything and everything is eugenics and it all boils down to being called a fascist simply because you’re expressing your freedom of choice.Where is the logic in that? Fascism in and of itself is the most extreme of right-wing ideologies. Hitler was a fascist and believe it or not it’s really associated with conservatives and pro-lifers more than liberal-minded Americans. It is they who want to strip a woman of her right to seek medically necessary abortions. They are the ones who are intolerant of other ideals and the decisions others want to make with their own damn bodies.More lack of logic:Speaking of eugenics, some parents of children with Down’s Syndrome (as well as other loved ones) tend to make comments regarding the desire for others to have these type of children. Isn’t that eugenics? A desire to not only force a woman to carry said child, but to then hope that this is spread through their genes into their children, their children’s children, etc., etc., and so on? That is altering the gene pool, by the way. To be so extreme that one wishes Down’s Syndrome would become a normal integrated part of the human genome is rather sick to be honest — and is the same kind of eugenics practiced by the Nazi Movement. It’s called Macro-Eugenics, and it’s the purposeful desire to affect the entire human population with your ideals on what traits are “desirable.” And yet more lack of logic:”I’m pro-choice but you’re completely wrong for aborting a defected fetus, and you are like Hitler.” Well, I think comments like these pretty much sum it all up for us. Stop pretending to be pro-choice for the sake of attempting to win a debate. You make yourselves look like fools when you make statements similar to the one quoted above. Being pro-choice means you support a woman’s right to choose. Pro-choice doesn’t mean : ”I support your right to choose unless it’s to choose abortion.”  nor does it mean: ”I support your right to choose abortion as long as it’s for a reason I agree with.” Do you want to know another reason why this “I’m pro-choice, but…” comment is so absolutely stupid?Because it indicates that the person making the statement is more okay with completely healthy “normal” babies being aborted, but not defected fetuses that the body does try to flush from it in at least a quarter of Trisomy 21-related pregnancies. It indicates that you’d rather a completely in-shape fetus be flushed from a woman’s body than a fetus that has the potential to be severely impaired on physical and cognitive levels. It indicates that you’d rather a parent give birth to one of these chromosomal defects than a healthy baby. To be honest, comments like these that come from parents of Down’s Syndrome kids come across as nothing more than bitterness and the wishing of the same fate on others. And that is me being as blunt and honest as I can be on the matter. Wishing “the same fate on others” while only condoning the abortive process of healthy and viable fetuses that are free of defects – just reeks of eugenics. So again, this is a choice that should be left between parents and their doctors. Period. This isn’t something that any other person has the right to sway or influence others about, nor is it a platform for bullying people who simply want to see a better family tree for their names and bloodlines. As stated in the last article, there is absolutely nothing wrong with making the choice to NOT abort. In fact, good for you if you don’t seek an abortion — but to climb upon a soapbox and call those who do choose or support abortion in these situations eugenicists or Nazi-like, just makes you look very under-educated and extremely intolerant of a woman’s right to choose as well as a parent’s right to raise the quality of family that they want to raise.Fin.

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    @a9cfdd8200779dec1c44ff1c08304d04:disqus you’re missing the point. again.. but that’s not at all surprising in the least. I’ve come to expect that much from you at this point. Again… wrap your mind around that post and what it was in response to. This particular response wasn’t about down’s syndrome as it was about your blatant lack of comprehension of even the most basic biological knowledge. Something 9th graders in modern high schools understand with ease.
    But just for the record — if you don’t put eggs in a cake — it doesn’t rise. YOU might want to eat your flat runny cake batter that didn’t rise, but don’t expect anyone else to be okay with their ruined recipe. Some people have higher standards in life, and some people have higher standards in the cake they eat. If you forget flour, you don’t have a cake, but a disgusting quiche-like mess — again, you’re free to eat that garbage, but don’t expect anyone else to.
    Your attempt at being clever not only didnt fit in this particular discussion, but it failed.. blew up right in your face.
    Its mind blowing how stupid you are. :( 

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    Anyway, I’m going back to the more intelligent side of the internet.. have fun failing at whatever cause it is you’re fighting… if you can’t even comprehend basic science, however, you’re never going to get anywhere with it.

    Just saying.

    And have fun being just like Hitler by thinking that women shouldn’t have a right to choose. That’s eugenics by the way, forcing women to breed and increase the chances of translocation of any chromosomal abnormality. You’re eugenicists, and the worst type at that. You condone the same macroeugenics as the Nazi movement that stripped all choice from its people and forced THEIR ideals upon the masses. Meanwhile you point fingers and call supporters of free-will and choice “eugenicists” but as I stated in my post that I’ve shared. It’s truly nothing more than expecting others to live in the hell you’ve created for yourselves.

    Enjoy that, nobody else is joining you in that aspect but the other nuts who apparently can only comprehend the pop-up books they show their children. 

    In the future, people will look back on this in total horror that there were people who actually believe that it’s okay to force chromosomal abnormalities into the bodies of mothers and lives of families. They’ll look back at your type with disgust in the same way we look at proponents of Roe V. Wade with the very same level of disdain.

    Remember that :) 

    buhbye now!

    • grdawg

      Whoa…wait a little second.  No one is “forcing” babies into the bodies of mothers.  Last time I checked, the women we’re talking about chose to have sex and no one inserted a baby inside their womb.  So let’s not get carried away and try to prove our (meaning your) points with clear exaggerations, to use a nice word. =)

  • Mike B Sullivan

    Wow, that was fun.

    • Stella McLeod

       And just think, according to Chelsea, hundreds of people have been reading this. Far greater publicity than I expected. By the way Chelsea, Mike and I are not from the USA. You’ll have to dream up some other excuse for our abysmal ignorance. Sad to say if you were educated in the USA, it probably explains your ignorance. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        oh, then your opinion isn’t valid — stick to changing the minds of those who don’t have constitutional rights lol

        thanks for letting me know! 

        :)

        • Sasra

          Stella, I am going to back you up here as an immigrant who lives in the US and has the same rights as everyone else here. Chelsea I guess you are saying that immigrants are dumb, well think again we are here and have a voice. Our opinions are valid, this is the melting pot of the world so unless you are a Native American you predecessors were immigrants too. Now on the chromosome comment. Do you know what chromosomes are and how Down Syndrome happens and how many types there are. Lets see how educated you are now???

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        You must live in Germany as obsessed as you are with nazisms and expressing the belief that people shouldn’t have the rights to choose what happens with their bodies and gene pools.

        That’s a shame..

        But like I stated below, your opinion is less than valid.  We have rights in the U.S. and little twits like you who are, by all intents and purposes, fascists can’t really do anything about that.

        You just end up getting laughed at by us as we have those little broken anomalies scraped out of our uteri and thrown in the garbage where they belong — so we can try again and actually bake a cake with the proper ingredients ;) 

        bye now!

      • Queen Bee

        Oh Stella! Show a little love! Not ALL of us are mouth breathing idiots! …hard as that may be to believe! Some of us can be taught!

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman
  • Stella McLeod

    Chelsea, I’ve just looked at the blog written by the mother of the baby you described as a monstrosity. I can’t see the link at the moment so I am hoping Cassie has removed your reference to it. I have experienced the death of a newborn baby and I sincerely hope the mother of that beautiful baby covered in vernix, so obviously photographed after birth, never finds out about your comment. Interestingly the mother says she was “pro-choice” until the child in her womb was diagnosed as having a fatal condition. She chose to continue the pregnancy and even had a cesarean to give her baby a better chance of being born alive. He lived for two days. Since you obviously don’t know about vernix, look it up.

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      I wasn’t referring to the vernix. I was referring to the triploidy — which is most commonly caused by the sperm of two different men penetrating the ovum of a single egg  therefore triple copying each chromosome. It was simply selfish and inhumane of the mother to do what she did. And she will have to live with that fact a whole lot more roughly than the mother who would have aborted the embryo so the resulting baby wouldn’t have to feel the trauma of an extremely early and unnecessary death as a sentient being with nerve endings and pain receptors.. 

      And honestly, I truly do not care if the person finds out about my comment. I don’t worry about the thoughts of people who are beneath me. Seeing as though this so called mother wouldn’t know humility and mercy from self-serving pandering, she’s hardly worthy of my respect. JMHO.

      p.s. — so you’ve had newborns die on you and you’ve birthed children afflicted by chromosomal abnormalities. Wouldn’t you think after so many different “issues” that it would simply be more humane for everyone involved if you just.. uhm.. stopped trying to breed? 

      just saying.

      • Stella McLeod

        I’ve read the mother’s blog. Did you? The baby was prenatally diagnosed at 27weeks so would have been able to feel pain already. You are also being unnecessarily judgmental of the mother re the baby’s conception. “Triploidy is not caused by anything that a parent may or may not have done.” http://www.healthline.com/galecontent/triploidy

        By the way the children I have with Down syndrome are adopted, not that it makes any difference as Down syndrome occurs randomly so, heaven forbid, even a perfect specimen of humanity as yourself could have one.

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          Wrong..again…(not surprising…again..)

          http://abcnews.go.com/Health/fetus-feels-pain-37-weeks-study/story?id=14472566#.T9FTINVuBcE 

          “a perfect specimen of humanity as yourself could have one” — no I wouldn’t. I’d be tested as early as possible and then abort immediately, dust myself off and try again for one that’s not broken. JMHO and my choice. If the test were to fail, I’d sue the doctors. Again, JMHO and my choice.

          0_o

          • guest

            That makes you, my dear, by definition, the most insane troll I have ever encountered. You continue to try desperately to prove your point only to be proven wrong by person after person then state how you are right and they are wrong. I have spent the last hour reading what you have to say and you have proven nothing, shown no credibility and in general done nothing to prove your point on any level. For weeks on end you give the same sad information with the same holier than thou attitude yet you have done nothing to prove your point. You bash people for posting links to the information you ask for, you skirt around questions you clearly don’t know the answer or it would not benefit you to answer. I even read on your blog where you made a comment about someone wearing tin foil on their head yet you list psychics as references! Seriously? I have seen absolutely nothing to validate anything you have said. And your post below this proves exactly what an immature child with a half education you are. Only children make comments like “have fun with….” and insulting ones intelligence then signing off with “buy bye” my 9 year old ends an argument like that!

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    @a9cfdd8200779dec1c44ff1c08304d04:disqus 

    Wrong..again…(not surprising…again..)http://abcnews.go.com/Health/f… ”a perfect specimen of humanity as yourself could have one” — no I wouldn’t. I’d be tested as early as possible and then abort immediately, dust myself off and try again for one that’s not broken. JMHO and my choice. If the test were to fail, I’d sue the doctors. Again, JMHO and my choice.0_op.s. you’re wrong again about the causes of triploidy. one of the many believed causes is exactly what I stated above. A science education, again, would suit you well.http://www.youtube.com/results…My only question at this point is why on earth would someone continue to argue and make statements when they’ve been systematically been proven incorrect on almost every statement they’ve made? Isn’t the definition of insanity the repetition of an act in hopes of different results? *facepalm*

    • Stella McLeod

       You obviously are not aware of the current limitations of prenatal genetic screening and testing or the fact that there can be false negatives as well as false positives.  What would you do if your baby becomes “broken” because of a difficult birth or later in life? 

  • Stella McLeod

    “Triploidy is a
    chromosomal abnormality that is caused by an extra set of chromosomes. There
    are three ways in which triploidy can occur. The first incident, which accounts
    for sixty-six percent of triploidy cases, is called dispermy. Dispermy is when
    two sperm fertilize one twenty-three-chromosome egg. Triploidy may also occur
    when nondisjunction happens in the male sperm causing a forty-six –chromosome
    sperm. The forty-six-chromosome sperm then fertilizes a normal egg causing a
    sixty-nine-chromosome zygote. This process is called diandry and accounts for
    twenty-four percent of all triploidy cases. Lastly triploidy can be caused by
    digyny. Digyny accounts for ten percent of triploidy cases and is caused by
    complete nondisjunction in an egg; this egg is fertilized by a normal sperm
    causing a triploidy zygote.” ( Triploidy  R. Ostrowski, PhD & L. McNally, M.S. http://coedpages.uncc.edu/cstem/papers%20-%20OLD/Triploidy.doc)

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      apparently you didn’t watch the UCLA presentation in which the professor explicitly states that one of the many causes is the fertilization of one egg and two sperm.

      do you know what a diploid sperm is?
      http://www.medilexicon.com/medicaldictionary.php?t=24457

      or maybe you just “ignored” that part.

      The page you shared…cannot be found…. good try ;)

      • Stella McLeod

         Your links didn’t work either. Try searching for “Ostrowski Triploidy”. My point was that there is more than one cause. There is no need to assume two men were involved in the baby’s conception.

        There is absolutely no need to be insulting about someone who is not even part of the discussion – where’s the justice in that?

        • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

          your point was that the cause I mentioned was NOT a cause, until you were proven otherwise — now you’re backpedaling.

          I hope you don’t homeschool whatever kids you’re “raising”, because if you are — you’re only worsening their cognitive development. 

          • Stella McLeod

             You implied it was the ONLY cause.

            “The abusive ad hominem is not just a case of directing abusive
            language toward another person. . . . The fallacy is committed when one
            engages in a personal attack as a means of ignoring, discrediting, or
            blunting the force of another’s argument.

            “Although some faulty arguers may call attention to distasteful features
            of their opponents in order to manipulate the responses of their
            audience, most abusers apparently believe that such characteristics
            actually provide good reasons for ignoring or discrediting the arguments
            of those who have them. Logically, of course, the fact that any of
            these characteristics might fit an opponent provides no reason to ignore
            or discredit his or her arguments or criticisms.”

            (T. E. Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            I said it was one of the causes.

            Again, your comprehension is extremely lacking — and your’e still backpedaling. This is verging on pathetic.

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            yes, you can copy and paste from other websites; we’ve established this.

            We’ve also established that you do not absorb or comprehend the things you copy-paste.. hence the blatant lack of understanding of haploid vs. diploid cells, until I pointed it out to you…of course.

            Got anything from the 1960s to add to this? 

          • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

            this was my post in which I did NOT imply it ws the ONLY cause… learn to read or at least comprehend:

            Wrong..again…(not surprising…again..)http://abcnews.go.com/Health/f… ”a perfect specimen of humanity as yourself could have one” — no I wouldn’t. I’d be tested as early as possible and then abort immediately, dust myself off and try again for one that’s not broken. JMHO and my choice. If the test were to fail, I’d sue the doctors. Again, JMHO and my choice.0_op.s. you’re wrong again about the causes of triploidy. one of the many believed causes is exactly what I stated above. A science education, again, would suit you well.http://www.youtube.com/results…My only question at this point is why on earth would someone continue to argue and make statements when they’ve been systematically been proven incorrect on almost every statement they’ve made? Isn’t the definition of insanity the repetition of an act in hopes of different results? *facepalm*

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      what I find hilarious is that you’re reading what I already told you, and misunderstanding the terminology to the point that you’re sharing information that I only just got done saying while pretending that it means something else entirely.

      That proves that you truly just don’t know any of this and you are relying on “on the spot” research as an attempt to NOT come across as completely uneducated on the manner.

      Myself, on the other hand, I actually have a science education and know precisely what haploid and diploid cells are. A diploid sperm is precisely what I stated above.

      How can a single sperm have two sets of DNA? Derp..@a9cfdd8200779dec1c44ff1c08304d04:disqus derp herp derp. Seriously…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1273763631 Julie Dinkins-Borkowski

    They are scared, and I understand.  We should not shun them.  I was scared too, but we need to embrace them and let them voice concerns and use that unconditional acceptance that our children teach us about.  That will do more good than fighting each other all the time.  You can change all the hearts, but those you do change will be forever changed.

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    Wow you guys are really obsessed with me. Thanks for all the pageviews. I made over $250 in Adsense and have opted to make a substantial donation to the Planned Parenthood Action Center — which will lend toward making abortion more available to women in the United States. :) thank you for making that possible!

  • Stella McLeod

    Thanks, Live Action, for removing some of the most offensive comments.
    And thanks, Cassy, for highlighting this issue. All the best for the future.

    • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

      yeah, live action doesn’t want to acknowledge that the pageviews and traffic they sent my way is paying for women’s abortions.

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    The Adsense money I’ve earned from all of the traffic sent to me by this website is being donated to the Planned Parenthood Action Center to help make abortion more affordable and available to women.

    How do you like them apples? :) 

  • Ilovemy3

    A world with no Down’s Syndrome would be a mighty sad place however a world with no Chelsea Hoffman-ish people might be delightful! Maybe we should weed people out that think like her and this problem would be solved!

    • Valueall

      yes-it won’t be long before there is a pre-natal test for sociopathy and other related  personaility disorders that cause untold pain……this will mean the likes of Chelsea won’t make it through.

      • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

        Thanks to the traffic provided by this blog and its visitors, I’ve been able to raise $250 in Adsense money to donate to the Planned Parenthood Action Center — for better availability of abortions for women and other needed healthcare. 
        Thanks!

      • Guest

        Such double standards here…we have to save foetuses with DS but go ahead and abort the ones with the sociopath gene?

  • http://twitter.com/TheRealChelseaH Chelsea Hoffman

    Thanks to the traffic provided by this blog and its visitors, I’ve been able to raise $250 in Adsense money to donate to the Planned Parenthood Action Center — for better availability of abortions for women and other needed healthcare. 

    Thanks!

  • tuckluck

    Thank you so much for writing this and thank you to the people who have made comments on here that support it! All of you have put into words much of what I have been thinking since first hearing of this. I am sharing your blog on FB. I realized that the best thing I can do is pray for Chelsea daily.

  • Pingback: New Mass. Law May Help Curb Down Syndrome Abortions

  • Michelle

    Downs is a medical condition and it’s an abnormality. Not wanting a child from conception because it has a problem that might forever change your life for the worse is fine. The child would live in pain, the parents would spend so much money. I mean as a future parent I want my future child to have the best health and life they can. I want them to be healthy without mental disorders (even though I know you can’t test for that in the womb) and not having any physical deformities either. I’m not going to bring a life into this world just to feel pain because I think it’d be beautiful. As a responsible adult I could never in good conscious bring a life into this world handicapped when I knew I had the choice not to.

    • grdawg

      No, it’s not fine…it’s selfish and wrong. Every parent wants their child to be healthy, but we should want that for our children’s sakes, not our own. It is just plain out sad when people give so little value to “handicapped” people just because they are not like you or me. They deserve the exact same treatment, rights, life, and love that we have – especially from their mother and father (or an adoptive mother and father if their birth parents can’t care for them).

  • quimminator

    So,who is it that decided what normal was?Absolutely no one has the right to play God.Have you been around children with disabilities Chelsea?I believe these children give us insight into what live is really about.They are full of love and are not affected by the many things that this world can distract us from.I believe they are gifts,not burdens,to show the true love,unconditional love,that keeps us grounded and reminds us that we are all fallible in some way or another.Again,who decides what normal is?God Bless.

  • Juvenal

    Human beings, by definition, have 46 chromosomes. Something with more isn’t human.
    The sooner we can all accept that, the better.

  • AngelinaW

    I wouldn’t take any notice of Chelsea Hoffman. Chelsea Hoffman is a liar and a fraud. She sets herself up as some kind of ‘journalist’, and implies that she has credentials in areas she knows nothing about. Chelsea Hoffman is ignorant and has a fairly low level of intelligence. When you put ignorance, stupidity and hatred together – all qualities that Chelsea Hoffman has in large amounts – then you end up with the kind of innane argument that she presents here. She does not understand how to research, and if you look at how she writes, it is clear that she is simply using the internet to get attention.