New Blood Test Allows Better Targeting of Which Babies to Kill

1279952010572

Doctors can now target which babies to kill with even greater accuracy.

A new blood test allow docs to discover which unborn babies might have Down’s Syndrome. The best is touted as being far more accurate than previously used methods. According to a news report, this means that fewer expectant mothers will “be made anxious” by an inaccurate test telling them that their baby has Down’s Syndrome.

The new test is not the final step. If it comes back suspicious, then the woman is sent for either amniocentesis or chorionic villi sampling.

Doctors are recommending that all pregnant women should be “screened for Down’s Syndrome and other trisomies.”

Amniocentesis which involves sticking a needle through the wall of the woman’s abdomen and the wall of the uterus (a procedure which doctors blandly describe as uncomfortable) and extracting amniotic fluid, does have legitimate medical uses. It can be used to detect if the baby’s lungs are developed enough for it to survive. This can be life-saving for both the mother and the baby in certain circumstances.

However, I don’t know of a legitimate medical use for this blood test. It would allow older women to know that their baby does not have Down’s Syndrome. But the blanket move to have every pregnant woman take the test sounds very much like eugenics to me.

Does the test have any use other than targeting which babies to kill?

Why, other than trying to kill unborn children with disabilities, would anyone want every pregnant woman to take the test?

More and more, a medical license is becoming a license to exploit and kill. Everything from euthanasia, to egg harvesting, surrogacy and abortion is being sold to us as for our own good.

How can any of us trust doctors who are so willing to kill their patients?

  • SisterCynthia

    It is looking more and more like the only people in the West who will “accept” a Downs child (or one with any other innate disability, for that matter) will be those Christians and a few others who cannot/will not choose to kill a “less-than-ideal” child. It is an ironic and vile reality that as the push for “sensitivity” towards the disabled is broadcast loudly by the culture, those who would actually find themselves with a disabled child are encouraged to eliminate them from the population before they ever take a breath of air. I guess that means, disabled kids are cool people, as long as they are somebody else’s concern. Anyone else hear Satan laughing? :(

  • Mrshopey

    My daughter just had the test as she is pregnant. I thought it was unnecessary as, due to her age and already ultrasound, there was little reason to think this was an issue.
    I asked her what she thought, if it came back positive. I never had them with mine. She said she would try to get things in place, learn about what is available, etc, for the baby’s care. I am not sure what they would have advised IF it came back indicating a STRONG possibility for DS. That may have been where the rubber met the mat.

  • Mrshopey

    I’ll add further what I didn’t like. They didn’t ask her if she wanted a test or not. She may have gone through with it where I wouldn’t have even cared. This is also adding extra to our healthcare costs – unnecessary testing – or maybe it is necessary to some as they would recommend killing the child.

  • george-a

    I faced the pressure to test with my pregnancies. I was 35 the first time, and 37 the last time. For the first, I had to resist the very heavy pressure my OB put on me to test. I told her to test only for my health, not for genetic anything. She complied reluctantly and made her dissatisfaction clear. The second time, I went to a different OB and discussed the issue even before I got pregnant again. She was just fine with it. Unfortunately, when you are the hormonal stew that pregnancy can create in a woman, you have to be the one to be strong, firm, informed, and steadfast. It ain’t easy.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X