Melanie_

Genes are only a piece of it. Its the whole nature/nurture debate - is it only our biology, or do we influence the future through the beliefs and values we pass on? As I watch my daughter blossom as a mother, and see the values she rejected 5 years ago become an integral part of how she parents her child, I become more aware of the responsibility I carry in each of my actions. I may not want to bear that burden, but as a parent I am constantly influencing who my kids will be, and who their kids will be, ad infinitum.

I understand the concern of an impossible double standard. But I also think that, to be a player on the world stage, Isreal has to recognize that sometimes criticism of their policies or actions is simply about their policies or actions. We shouldn't have to worry about being labelled ant-Semites because we disagree with Isreali politics. I fully support Isreal's right to exist, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they do. Actually, in my view this means that they have shed the "also ran" status, and taken on their rightful place in world affairs, warts and all.

See my last post... What do you think, CA?

"A hundred years from now, it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind or car I drove.... but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child." This sounds trite, but rings true for many of us. Our legacy can be found in what we pass to our children, or to the people we teach or mentor, or to the people who look to us for guidance (regardless of our belief in our capacity to provide that guidance). Whether it's Anna Nicole Smith or me, or any one else posting on or reading this board, we all make a difference - its a question of what kind of difference we make. My existance will be meaningless 50,000 years from now, as will yours, but perhaps some shadow of our values will have been passed down in one form or another. That doesn't change the fact that there is a 5 month old baby in Hollywood being fought over in a paternity suit between three men, with millions of dollars on the line and a questionable commitment to the child as an individual.

That's an interesting perspective, August. Without knowing a great deal about me, or Anna Nicole, or about the legacy either of us leave, how are you comparing our respective contributions to the future? This feels like a negative comparison, and I'm not sure where you are coming from in making it.

Its easy to see Anna Nicole Smith as a bad soap opera, as I said before. She lived, and probably died, in the fast lane, and it isn't any surprise that it finally caught up with her. But this baby is left to live her life, and what chance does she have to develop as a "normal", functioning, well adjusted and rational human being when her life is filtered through the lens of her notorious mother? That is why I feel compassion for this child, and hope that somehow, someone provides her with a secure and loving home. As the paternity suit continues, I wonder if this child will just be a pawn, or if someone actually cares about her as a child. Is this really an issue regarding US Politics?

Believe it or not, I’m going to return to my sperm argument. Life doesn’t begin, life continues. Both the sperm and egg, before conception, are living cells. When they combine, another form of living cell results – how is the fertilized egg any different, in terms of life, than the unfertilized egg? We don’t have a problem with discarding unfertilized eggs, or sperm that have not fulfilled their mission, and I don’t see any difference in discarding them after they have combined. To return to the Down Syndrome issue - Down Syndrome isn't something that can be "cured". It is a chromosomal anomoly, and you can't remove an extra chromosome from every cell in a person's body. It isn't a disease, and in fact people with DS can be just as physically healthy as anyone else, although often it can be associated with secondary disabilities. My real issue here is not about abortion, but about the implied message that we should eliminate Down Syndrome from our society. It also means that a woman's "choice" to continue a pregnancy becomes a public statement, open to scrutiny and criticism from those who disagree with her choice. Many in our society, and some posting here on this board, would say that, by making that choice, she should accept full financial and social responsibility for that child. Would there be a move to deny coverage for medical costs? Social supports? Special education? I'm wondering how several people here might respond to these questions.

Some genetic issues are more volatile than others. For example, Tay-Sachs disease is genetically determined, and results in a child growing typically for the first 18 months of their lives. After that, they start painfully and irreversibly dying by the time they are 4 or 5 years old. It is most common in Eastern European Jews, but that is simply because of intermarriage - it can happen anywhere. If two carriers marry, there is a one in four chance that they will produce a child with this disorder. If a test were available, what parent would choose to put a child (and themselves) through this? Picture your normal and happy one and a half year old suddenly enduring pain and suffering that you can't alleviate, eventually leading to their death. On the other hand, Down's Syndrome isn't a death sentence - it is a chromosomal abnormality. It can't be "cured", as the extra chromosome can never be removed, but many people with Down's Syndrome can be productive and contributing members of society. We can and do test for Tay Sachs, but to what end do we test for Down's?

Her life was a bad soap opera. I feel sorry for the innocent 5 month old child, who is left with the legacy of a notorious mother and an uncertain paternity suit. Its like watching a train wreck.

Uh-uh. You are the one who keeps bringing in biologists and science. You find a peer reviewed scientific article that asserts that biological life begins at conception. Waiting for your post.....

You keep saying this - where's your citations? How about some links to biologists?

Off topic, but permit me to ask, do you take a persons work history when grading papers? I mean if they are working two jobs to survive does that count in your marking? Nope. The grade they earn is the grade they get. However, I am probably a "soft touch" for extensions, if they can give me a good enough sob story.

Absolutely you can see my ideology in my posts. Your ideology is showing, too. In fact, there is ideology running rampant on these boards! My point here, which you seem not to be getting, is that you are trying to dictate to me, and all other women, how to use our reproductive equipment. I was trying, with little success, to show what it is like when the shoe is on the other foot. I started this thread because I felt some conflict between two strong values I hold. I support the right of a woman to choose to continue a pregnany or not. However, I also see people with disabilities as equal in value to anyone else, and this move by the OB/GYNs smacks of elimination of a segment of society. I can accept that it provides more information to base a choice on, as long as that choice can be freely made by the individual, without undue pressure from either side.

But who will I buy my donuts from? Seriously, though, I agre with PolyNewbie (except for the part about the international banksters - not quite sure what that means). As a post secondary instructor I see students working a couple of jobs and still trying to juggle a full course load. I really admire their energy, but I know when the student hasn't been able to give their full attention to school - I mark a lot of almost great papers.

Why does life begin at conception? As I said, those sperm seem just as alive to me, and possibly more conscious as they have a pretty clear idea of where they are going and what they are doing, and do so independently. Why aren't you agitating to protect them?

The "life begins at conception" argument is silly. The sperm swim single mindedly up the fallopian tube to find the egg - they appear just as "alive" in the moments before conception as the fertilized egg does in the moments after. Somehow people are willing to say those sperm cells are dispensible, disposable, no big deal to eject as many of those as men want, but heaven forbid a woman eject a clump of cells from her body.

I think the real issue does come down to choice, though. Once a test is available and encouraged, as is the case as of today's announcement, parents will face increasing pressure to "choose" to abort their fetus.

These parents disagree with you, RW. Another Article in the Wpg Free Press

I agree, BC chick, but my concern is about aborting based on genetic testing. Will we see the elimination of Down Syndrome in our society? Should we see this as a good thing? What happens to the occasional child born with Down Syndrome anyway - someone who slips through the genetic screening? And an even bigger concern is what happens next - how many other genetic conditions will we start testing for, in search of the "perfect" baby? In China, there is trend towards aborting female fetuses since people prefer to have a son, and they only get one child (although this law seems to be loosening somewhat). I am in support of a parent's right to choose to continue a pregnancy or not, but this recommendation by Canadian OB/GYNs makes me really uncomfortable.

OK, I know we've got a long thread already on abortion, but this is a different twist. Winnipeg Free Press Thoughts?

The kids who haven't been immunized are probably at greater risk than those who have been, at least in terms of catching the disease. Who gets to decide medical treatment for these infants? We have child protection laws in place to guard against abuse, but I'm not sure this really falls into that category. I'm hesitant to say that the state has the right to override parents' decisions for their children, but in the end we have to think about the best interests of the child. Medical interventions give the babies the best shot at survival (and these children have a long shot at best - two have already died) and will likely continue to be necessary for some time in this case.

*Gasp* Not ...... EDMONTON! Have we no pity?

I think this is one of those provincial differences we come across so often here at MLW. Manitoba MidwivesIn Ontario, it sounds like maybe the possibility of midwives in hospitals is there, but there are more barriers... Ontario Midwives

OK, more seriously, midwives are a good solution, but we can't discount the medical advances that are available only in hospitals. It is true that midwives delivered babies for thousands of years, but many babies and mothers died as well. Simple medical interventions available today save lives. Midwives in hospitals make a great deal of sense.

Some pregnancies happen in the back seat of an '89 Tempo....