This is Pro Choice? Really?

Your baby is incompatible with life. I recommend scheduling a termination.

Can anyone tell me how this is pro choice? Seems even invasive testing, which carries a risk of miscarriage, is not even the patient’s choice, but strongly pushed by the “doctor”, whose intention here doesn’t seem to be to do no harm.

Are we regressing in time to where handicapped infants were just abandoned to die? And often, with every possibility from mislabeling in a lab to, as in Mrs. Walsh’s pregnancy, carelessly filing the wrong patient’s chart in her report, perfectly healthy children are recommended for everything from more invasive testing to termination.

Personally if those in favor if unfettered abortion rights want to call themselves pro abortion, or nihilistic, or even come right out and say they view handicapped, in particular Downs Syndrome infants, as unworthy life forms, I wish they’d just come right out and say it. Because their pushing testing the mother may not want and already judging an infant who hasn’t taken a first breath as unworthy of life hardly seems pro Choice

1 Like

Here’s the fallacy of this particular phrase.

Really wish pro aborts and those who view the handicapped as unworthy would just come right out and say it.

Tired of such euphemisms as “a woman’s freedom to choose”, “a mother’s freedom to make the best choices for her family”, and now “product of conception” and “incompatible with life”.

Malcolm X liked his racists out in the open, where he could see them. Those in the so called “pro choice” movement, IMO, should come right out and admit they’re really only pro choice if the choice is abortion. Or against giving the handicapped the same opportunity at life as the able bodied. Their true feelings show through their euphemisms.


This was 23 years ago, but I don’t think I want to change rights because of medical mix-ups.

She was of the age where a doctor must tell her that genetic testing is available, and what results of that testing might mean.

Personally, I don’t think any woman should choose invasive genetic testing, unless she plans on choosing abortion based on results, because the risk of miscarriage is too high.

This story is about a mix-up from 23 years ago, I don’t really understand the point…

Yep still choice.

Not a question of “unworthy”. Question of quality of life.

Blind. Dumb. (As in can’t speak.) Can’t move. Fed inravenuously.

You’d want to give birth to someone who would suffer for their entire life? Well, you feel free. Just think of the hell your child would go through.

So no mix ups or lab errors take place now?

The point is to illustrate the fallacy of the term “incompatible with life”. And the fact that everyone from front office to lab employees to physicians screw up.

It also illustrates the fallacy of the pro choice movement. How is the statement “Your baby is incompatible with life. I recommend scheduling a termination” pro choice?

The “physician”’s disdain for those with handicaps comes through loud and clear.

Getting pregnant post menopause at 52? What?

The blind, the physically handicapped, the feeble minded have no possibilities but a life of sheer Hell?

I think the amazing woman who started the above organization begs to disagree, as would my blind grandparents were they still alive. They lived to 79 (him) and 101 (her).

Last thing we need is partisan armchair analysis of someone else’s anecdotal medical situation.


What about satanic pregnancies? Should we hope those end? Or choose life and hope for the best for the child?

1 Like

No one wants an erroneous medical procedure based on incorrect lab results…

I still don’t see your point.

As for terminal conditions identified in unborn children, yes, they do in fact exist.

Let’s get real, it’s a garbage click bait article.

Any procedure would be equally “shocking”, someone almost getting a mistaken amputation, kidney removed, or countless medical procedures would be just as click bait worthy.

The article doesn’t even state what the amniocentesis results were… and on purpose, so someone like you can reduce it to a “handicap” as if the doctor wanted to kill some poor child who was viable.

It’s trash.

1 Like

Abortion threads are really worthless in most cases. They dont move the needle pretty much whatsoever.

You are as likely to convince someone who supports womens choice to not do so as the other side is to convince an ardent right to bare arms supporter of any gun legislation.

Here’s Pro “choice” for you.

6th Circuit Panel Hears Arguments for KY Law Stopping Live Dismemberment of Unborn Babies

That’s right. Pro “choicers” argue against a law to stop dismemberment abortions after 11 weeks. Plenty of other ways to kill the child, of course, but they insist on the right to do it by dismemberment.

1 Like

Sounds pro-choice since the patient chooses, right? Done doctors might recommend differently. Are doctors not supposed to provide recommendations? Are patients forced y to o follow their doctor’s recommendation or may they CHOOSE differently?

I do not understand the problem here.

Because their letting the woman CHOOSE what to do.

Where exactly is the mother’s choice being considered at all here?

“Your baby is incompatible with life. I recommend scheduling a termination.”

There is no here are your results—which weren’t even that patient’s results—you can consider

Researching Downs Syndrome and how to prepare for a special needs child

Looking into potential therapies

There was no mention of any choice available but the so called doctor’s. And that’s where I wish the so called pro choice movement and its adherents would just come right out and say how they really feel: they don’t support any choice that wouldn’t be theirs in the same situation.

Someone like me?

I’ve worked in health care for over 20 years, long enough to know about medical errors, which the article did admit—the results did not belong to the author of the article.

I recommend scheduling a termination

Sounds like he’s recommending a course of action and she must CHOOSE whether or not to follow it.