Quote from: Rooothlespredators on August 25, 2014, 05:30:16 PM

Quote from: blablahblah on August 25, 2014, 05:15:30 PM

For the record, I partially agree with the stance that -- considering the availability of modern technology and genetic testing, and that <13 week abortions are basically just a specially induced menstrual period (and utterly overblown by religious zealots) -- government assistance should be reduced or somehow limited as a punitive response to irresponsible parenting decisions.

Why should tax-payers have to cough up 10,000s for a lifetime of special-ed and rehab, when the parents could just try again instead? In fact, they probably shouldn't try again, because it's probably an age-related problem and genetic diseases hit a brick wall when the parents are past around 36 years. If they really want to have a kid, adopt.

Incorrect. Age related genetic disease probability increases gradually. Depending on your definition of a wall, a woman still only has a 1% chance of Down syndrome at 40. Maybe at 45 they should stop trying.

http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/womens_health_issues/detection_of_genetic_disorders/overview_of_genetic_disorders.html

This is not true. The terms Downs has come to include a vast swath of trisomy 21 errors - so now the current definition includes more aberrations. Because of this the base risk starts at around 1% for Downs at age 35. When I did my residency we were taught the risk goes up roughly 2.5% per year after 35, so a 40 year old would have a 13.5% risk of some form of trisomy (some are worse than others). With the latest in genome sequencing we're finding out that the rate doesn't seem to increase at 2.5%, at least not in all groups of women. Some women clearly have a higher risk and others lower - I think the current estimate is closer to about 1.7%, so it would still be about 10% risk for trisomy on 21 at age 40.