|
29 Aug 08 - 12:21 PM (#2425553) Subject: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor When I heard she had a kid with Downs my heart went out to her. But when I read that she is 44 and that child was born this April, alarm bells rang in my head. I don't claim to know much about this. I haven't given the matter much research or thought, but deciding to have a kid at 44 seems reckless to me and this chart I found on line seems to confirm that the older the mother is the higher the risk. I'd like to know more about this and I know that there is a lot of knowledge on this board. please enlighten me and please don't take my questions as critical or abrasive. I am genuinely curious about this issue. Here is the chart. likelihood of Downs syndrome |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:27 PM (#2425558) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Megan L My mother was 44 when I was born. So what if a child has Downs I know a couple of lassies who got through university with it. I also know a lad who will never be able to hold down a full time job but his honesty, straight wisdom and willingness to help makes him a great blessing in our community I wish people would just ditch the labels medically they have soime use in a community they are to often just used as an excuse to exclude people. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:30 PM (#2425561) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: irishenglish I don't have much technical experience with it either Jack, other than to say it seems to be happening more these days. My sister gave birth to her first at 41, and there were no problems. I know, you're probably saying, there's a big difference between 41 and 44,maybe that's true. But you do seem to hear more of this happening now. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:32 PM (#2425565) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: katlaughing It's already being used to prove her pro-life stance...a crass pandering to the religious wrong who put the shrub in office and is needed by McCan't. Personally, it's her choice, but I'd have a hard time being a mother of ANY baby in my forties and hold down such a demanding, stress-filled job. I have a friend whose daughter has made it her life's mission to adopt unwanted Downs babies from Russia. She has four, all with Downs, and is in the process of adopting another. She has a full-time job for herself and for a full-time aide/friend who lives with her and her children. I don't understand what seems like an extreme commitment, nor does her mother, esp. after her husband committed suicide a year and a half ago, after which she adopted her fourth Downs baby from Russia. Even with just one son, her first Downs baby, she has never worked outside the home as she was totally devoted to him, as she has been to her other Downs children. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:37 PM (#2425567) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: pdq I wodner if Neil Young will support her (in the general sense, not that he will vote for her). He has a Down's son who was a poster child for something, Special Olympics probably. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:39 PM (#2425569) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor IE The likelihood more than doubles from 41-44 according to that chart. , but from 30 to 40, it goes up 10 times. Megan, I did not know that one could graduate university with the ailment. Is that ability universal or rare? I can't imagine it for the down's kids I knew when I was young. I guess what puzzles me is why someone with 4 kids already would take that risk. If they think that even if they have a down's kid there is a reasonable prospect of college and a satisfying life, my question is answered. Is that the case? |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:44 PM (#2425577) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Megan L Mostly they didnt do it because nobody bothered their backside to give them the chance to try. I made a point of including peaople with any difficulty on my first aid courses including teenagers :) |
|
29 Aug 08 - 12:49 PM (#2425583) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Ebbie From what I gather, many families who have a Down's Syndrome child feel that everybody in their family benefited from the experience, that the child exhibited unconditional love and insight into what is truly important in life. In today's world a Down's person has a much greater chance at living a productive, rich life. It used to be that the typical person died before he or she was 40; that is no longer true. Much more is known in the medical community about the attendant ailments of Downs to watch for and treat. What I find difficult is of making the choice to bring that large a family into being. Sure, the Palins have enough money to raise those kids- but I do think that it would be nice to signal an awareness of earth's finiteness. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM (#2425605) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: pdq Every parent I have met says their Downs child is just as precious as a "normal" one. I hate to use the term bigot, but claiming that bringing a Downs child into this world is a mistake or shows poor judgement is, in my opinion, is bigotry. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:15 PM (#2425612) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: SINSULL This is a decision only the parents involved can and should make. Frankly, Jack, it is none of your business. And before you dismiss all Down's Syndrome children as incapable of a "satisfying life" I suggest you read up on it. I find this discussion completely bigoted and offensive. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:19 PM (#2425614) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor You obviously have no problem using the term, if you did you would not have used it. You use a typical Republican tactic of trying to look like a nice guy before you smear. But since no one has claimed "that bringing a Downs child into this world is a mistake or shows poor judgement". Since there has only been a request for information on the topic, your lack of judgement is once more is on display. Nice try at the smear but it cannot stick. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:23 PM (#2425617) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: irishenglish Sinsull, I don't disagree with what you said, but Jack purposely said he was looking for knowledge on the subject, not being critical or abrasive in his starting post. Jack and I don't always agree, but I believe he genuinely is looking for real, salient info here. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:28 PM (#2425621) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Sinsull. I have dismissed nothing I have only asked. Before you get in a tizzy and spew straw men you should read what I have written. Instead of reading up on it. I thought I would ask you all. I know that there are people here that can tell me more than a hundred books. If you have information to provide, instead of bile. I'd like to read it. If all you have is self righteous insults. I am not so interested. >> Frankly, Jack, it is none of your business. It has been brought up already in her biography, as a qualification, an affirmation of her anti-abortion stance. What else is not my business? Her real qualifications? Her ability to lead? I didn't open up this topic. The GOP did. I just want to know more. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:28 PM (#2425622) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: SINSULL " I haven't given the matter much research or thought, but deciding to have a kid at 44 seems reckless to me " None of your business. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:31 PM (#2425628) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Joe Offer Starting a separate thread about it does serve to give the question more weight than it deserves. Certainly, there are reasons for starting a new thread, but it sure looks bigoted when you see it on the Forum Menu. In the chart that Jack linked to, it says that if the mother is 44, the chance of a child being born with Down Syndrome is 1 in 40. A 1-in-40 risk seems reasonable to me. -Joe- |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:31 PM (#2425629) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Her judgement is my business. Its everyone's business. If my fears are unfounded, please allay them. Please reassure me. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:34 PM (#2425632) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Megan L The title of this thread was I am afraid in itself offensive implying as it does that it was a judgement on a woman for having a child when older. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:34 PM (#2425634) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: catspaw49 Well, then not to be offensive, but start with this: the term is DOWN Syndrome, DOWN children, etc. The word is not Downs or Down's......simply DOWN. I would be more than happy to play god and make a list of all the people for a wide variety of reasons should not have kids and then go about enforcing it. The possibility of having a Down child would make my list........following about 400 or 500 other reasons first. Spaw |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:44 PM (#2425652) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I did not mean it in a bigoted way. It was a serious question that came to my mind. I seriously am requesting information and Sinsull. I respectfully disagree, that since the GOP has brought it up, it certainly is my business, as much as Obama's church is our business or who Biden may have cribbed his speeches from is our business, or what Michelle Obama is proud of or not is our business. My knowledge of the syndrome is quite old, I was told that it was a terrible thing. Already I have found out that the life span is much longer than it was and that some down's people have graduated university . That is reassuring. I want to know more. If the thread title looks bigoted I have no problem with changing it to something less confrontational. If you all can tell me it is not the curse as it was described to me when I was young, that's a story I would like to hear. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:46 PM (#2425655) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: bobad pdq, Neil Young has two sons who were born with cerebral palsy, not Down syndrome. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:47 PM (#2425656) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor >>Well, then not to be offensive, but start with this: the term is DOWN Syndrome, DOWN children, etc. The word is not Downs or Down's......simply DOWN. Thank you Spaw, point taken. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:48 PM (#2425657) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: SINSULL Down in US; Down's in UK and rest of the world. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 01:54 PM (#2425665) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Megan L My applogies Spaw but ye ken ma typin hell lad ah spell bananannaa ORANGE :). When I was young my two wee pals were called Monguls I jist thought it meant their mammy and daddy had gone tae mongolia tae make them. That was back in the days when anyone different was kept at home and not allowed to be a person. Thankfully my mum taught us that everyone was a person with the right to be given the chance to be the best THEM they could be we all have tings we are good or not so good at but if no one gives us the chance or encourages us to try we will never find out what we are capabil of. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 02:06 PM (#2425679) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Megan L You are right Sins jings noo ahv spelt somethin right oh help ma boab. Jack you might find this link helpful Down's syndrome UK |
|
29 Aug 08 - 02:45 PM (#2425703) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Riginslinger Well, what were the chances the George I and Barbara would have a buffoon when they conceived George W? |
|
29 Aug 08 - 02:48 PM (#2425706) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Jack, could you explain exactly what you mean by 'judgement' in your title, please? |
|
29 Aug 08 - 02:53 PM (#2425710) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: McGrath of Harlow "claiming that bringing a Downs child into this world is a mistake or shows poor judgement is, in my opinion, is bigotry." Absolutely right. Aspiring to be charitable on such matters, I think that Sailor Jack was absolutely right too when he wrote "I haven't given the matter much research or thought". |
|
29 Aug 08 - 03:02 PM (#2425718) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,DEB I'm not as concerned with the child or any condition... I want to know why this mother isn't at home and was back at work 3 days after giving birth. Is she trying to portray herself as a "good" mother instead of the "Mother who abandoned her 5th child who happens to have special needs." I'm disgusted with this person. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 03:06 PM (#2425720) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Ruth - A Person Nicholas - A Person The Precious Gift That Is Down's Syndrome |
|
29 Aug 08 - 03:07 PM (#2425723) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Donuel I like Down syndrome people. They are good people. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 04:47 PM (#2425815) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: catspaw49 Truthfully it wasn't all that long ago they were called "mongoloid" which was about as ugly a term as I can recall. Karen and I started our adoption process looking at Down kids. They have always held a special place in our hearts. Tris came along first and in a way we were blessed through him with meeting many Down kids. He has several friends now who are and over the years has gone to school with several others. So we got to enjoy little bits of them thanks to Tris. There are so many kids born with serious problems that Down is kinda' low on the totem pole. We have learned so much about the treatment and education/functioning level of them over the years that many have an excellent prognosis for a good quality of life. Now if it were me wanting to condemn some mother for having a baby, then the top of my list would be the ones who drink and do drugs during pregnancy. Fetal Alcohol/Fetal Drug Syndromes can be extremely serious and cause far more problems to society and at a far greater price. These kids are the products of bad judgement at any age. Spaw |
|
29 Aug 08 - 04:52 PM (#2425818) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: PoppaGator Serving as governor of a state, even a small one (population-wise), is a demanding job, At least, it should be more of a responsibility, and more of a burden, than the average 9-to-5 gig. A woman with several young children, one of them a "special-needs" individual, would not ordinarily have the time to take such a job upon herself. The only way to do it is to hire someone else to raise your kids for you. Only the most affluent among us have that option. The rest of us have the right to an opinion as to whether it's an appropriate choice, and an opinion about any woman who makes it |
|
29 Aug 08 - 04:54 PM (#2425819) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Sorcha OH, NOW I get why she is so 'important'. Hadn't connected the name before..... |
|
29 Aug 08 - 05:00 PM (#2425823) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: katlaughing When I wrote of my friend's daughter having a full-time job, I meant full-time taking care of her children, all of whom have been adopted and all of who are Down/s children. That is her choice and commitment; fortunately she and her late husband were able to amass enough of a fortune that she can continue to stay at home with them and give them all of the love, etc. they need. I frankly agree with DEB, to some extent. If I had a special needs baby, I would be at home with that baby, not back at work three days later and that is NOT non-feminist to say so. It is the mother in me giving a damn about a newborn who needs to bond with its mother and father, just as any other child needs to bond. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 05:11 PM (#2425827) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Riginslinger "OH, NOW I get why she is so 'important'. Hadn't connected the name before....." Sorcha - Maybe you can connect if for those of us who are less well connected. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 05:23 PM (#2425836) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: DougR Sinsull: I'm with you on this one. Suggesting that one should not have a child at age 44 because it might have Down's Syndrome is sick. As others have already said, most parents who have such children feel blessed. I'm sure, when elected, Sarah Palin will have lots of help raising her kids and from what I have seen, it won't prevent her from carrying out her duties as VP. DougR |
|
29 Aug 08 - 05:27 PM (#2425841) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Megan L |
|
29 Aug 08 - 05:32 PM (#2425842) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Sorcha Candidate John McCain's choice of running mate...his VP offering. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 05:51 PM (#2425854) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Donuel follow the $ I have found out exactly who owns her and how long she has been groomed for this job and why. Honestly There was no sudden surprise decision. Her credo: Drill Drill Drill ANW(life)R must be drilled NOW. Her owners: Big Oil Her Groomer: Murcdoch and the Wall Street Journal 100 days ago she was contacted to do the Wall Street Journal TV special In Search of Black Gold. It will air September 24th The anti abortion issue is a feather in McCain's hat. The myth that she is a crack shot hunter is laughable. Now that you know, listen for her progressively strident position on drilling. "Biden scares me" "Obama scares me" she says this a lot "In a world of hurt!" her favorite phrase and repeated like McCain says"my friends" "Pipelines don't do a thing to the land or animals." |
|
29 Aug 08 - 07:04 PM (#2425911) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Don Firth Beware! Screed! Some years ago my wife and I attended a three day retreat at Seabeck, out on Hood Canal. It was an annual event of the Fellowship of Reconciliation (a long-standing peace group). The first day at lunch we shared a table with a young woman and her little girl. The girl was three, maybe four years old, and she had Down syndrome. One could tell by her appearance, not by her behavior, and the fact that, at her age, she couldn't talk. We chatted a lot with the mother as the child looked on. Later on during the weekend, as I was going from meeting to workshop to meeting (I was making my way along the paths in my wheelchair), several times I saw the mother and child. And each time the little girl saw me, she would run over to me, crawl up on my lap, and give me a big hug. I hugged her back while her mother smiled and looked on. I could hardly keep from puddling up when the little girl hugged me. Whatever abilities she might develop, or not develop as she grew older, and whatever life had in store for her, two things were certain. She was a happy child. And she was a little bundle of unconditional love. When it comes to unconditional love, sometimes it takes someone like this little girl to show you what it's all about. I will never forget her. Fortunately, I've had very little experience with—what shall I call it? Prejudice? Bigotry is too strong a word, I think. Prejudice will do, I guess, because it refers to pre-judging without actual knowledge. Leaping to an unfounded conclusion. I had polio when I was two years old, and until recently have walked with forearm crutches and a leg brace all of my life. I suppose this qualifies me as "handicapped" or "disabled." But other than not being able to run the four-minute-mile or climb Mount Everest (not really on my agenda anyway), I've been able to do pretty much anything I've really wanted to do, including having a halfway decent singing career, during which I'm sure a lot of people were a bit surprised when they saw me walk out on stage using crutches with someone carrying my guitar, then handing it too me when I sat down. But they seemed to get used to it and after the first song or two, it just didn't matter. It was damned inconvenient at times, but I never thought of myself as "handicapped" or "disabled." A friend and guitar student of mine and I got to talking after a lesson, and he said that when we were first acquainted, he was very conscious of the fact that I needed to use crutches, but as time went on, they seemed to fade into the background. "You need to use crutches to walk. But if I didn't have my glasses, I wouldn't be able to read or drive! So—big deal!" About eighteen years ago, the shoulders gave out (every step was a push-up) and I had to take to a wheelchair. This is even more inconvenient. Stairs and all that (I hate that sickening crash when I hit the bottom!). On occasion, I have encountered a few people—a very few people—who, when Barbara and I first meet them, tend to talk only to Barbara and not to me, as if I were merely a piece of furniture. And will talk about me or ask Barbara something about me as if I weren't even present. Even something as innocuous as "Would your husband like a cup of coffee?" To which Barbara will reply a bit testily, "Why don't you ask him?" Apparently, the assumption is that if my legs don't work, my mind doesn't either. Fortunately this has happened maybe only three or four times within the past eighteen years and elicits a rather prejudiced thought on my part, which I manage to stifle before it reaches my lips: "Twit!!" Or words to that effect. I recall an incident, years ago, when I was still using crutches (the crutches were in plain sight, leaning against an empty chair), where I was sitting quietly at a table full of people, most of whom I had never met before, listening to the conversation. After a bit, I made a comment or two of my own. A few moments later, one woman leaned over to her husband and whispered, "Well, he seem to be able to talk all right. . . ." I wonder what she would have thought had she known that, at the time, I was working as an announcer at a classical music radio station. Barbara spends a couple of Saturday mornings a month, along with the pastor of a local church, with a group of developmentally delayed adults (one of the group has Down syndrome). Since Barbara works at the Seattle Public Library, she's their "story lady." I've gone there and sung occasionally. They all seem like a pretty happy bunch of people. Some of them work regular jobs. You're not going to hear deep discussions of astrophysics or existential philosopy at these gatherings, but they have a lot of fun. And they all get along. As far as Sarah Palin and her Down syndrome child are concerned, I regard this as just happenstance. How many women (and don't forget the fathers!) stop to think, "Maybe we'd better not. At my age, we might have a Down syndrome baby!" Trying to make political hay out of it—one way or the other (!!!)—is what sets my teeth on edge! As a political issue, tt's not a fit subject! My humble opinion. Don Firth |
|
29 Aug 08 - 08:51 PM (#2425963) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor I would and have wondered about the risks of a woman in her forties having a child. Though I am childless, I chose not even to ask. It was my understanding that there are a lot of hazards. Down is one of them. Some of you seem to be saying it is preferable to have Down syndrome children because they are so much more loving. Do you really believe that? Was I so wrong about Down Syndrome? I understood it was a genetic defect often manifested in developmental delays and congenital disease. Was I really so mistaken? I understand that one can and should love one's children unconditionally. What I am trying to understand is taking risks in having them. I understand Joe's point. He doesn't think one in forty is much of a risk, and Megan and Kat have made the points that show me that the consequences today are much less dire than they were when I learned about the condition. So certainly I am much less alarmed than I was. I was making no political point and I said so. I was asking for information. I'd love it if some of you very informed people would tell me more. I'd appreciate it though, if the name calling and mischaracterization of my words were left out of it. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 09:00 PM (#2425966) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Ebbie JtS, I don't believe that anyone has even implied that it is *preferable* to have a Down syndrome child rather than a perfectly healthy one. Don't be silly. Instead I think we are saying that people have been most pleasantly surprised that having a Down syndrome child in the house is not, by any means, the tragedy they may have feared. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 09:17 PM (#2425976) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: olddude I will be the first to comment on someone's political stand on the important issues. They get my vote if they believe in what I believe in and that is America is about everyone not just the wealthy few. I however would never never comment or judge someone on the decision to have or not have kids at any age. Kids are the most important thing in my life and even now in my 50's with our kids all grown , I would have another if it were possible for us to do so. Even thought about adoption. I cannot fault her at 43 she wants another child. And kids with special needs are still kids. The joy and sorrow that goes along with every kid is still there you know. She has that right and I think it is terribly wrong to judge her for it. She won't get my vote because I cannot stand the republican party any longer and the 8 year disaster we went through but trashing her for wanting another child is not right I think |
|
29 Aug 08 - 09:42 PM (#2425986) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Who has judged her Olddude? Who fuck is trashing anyone? What the fuck is wrong with you people? A few of you are being reasonable and informative. But most are behaving quite oddly. Some of you are acting as if Down syndrome was some wonderful blessing. I know that it is not, but I now know it is not as bad today as it was when I was younger. Others are making up offenses to accuse me of, because apparently you are mad at me for asking some questions. But you don't criticize the questions. You talk about "Trashing" and "making hay" and among other things, that convoluted BS that DougR was spewing. It was a serious question for me. Still is. If you don't want to address it fine. If you don't think I should have asked it, you have a right to say so. I will disagree as I did with Sinsull but at least she expressed he honest opinion. If you think I asked it poorly that's cool, Joe has already said that, but if anyone else wants to chime in I don't have a problem with that. But I really would appreciate it if others would stop making up things which I have not said so that you can disagree with them. I'm tired of this. I won't be visiting this tread again. Good day. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 09:53 PM (#2425991) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: olddude Oh I wasn't trashing anyone. I was making a comment because people were talking about it downtown at my grocery store and on the thread. You see Obama's mom worked several jobs and was a single mom and he turned out ok I think. I heard a lady today at the grocery story say I think it is awful to have a baby at 43 and want a career especially with a special needs child. I thought that was awful to say, why can't a person . That is the meaning of my comments. I was not directing it at you or anyone in general but wanted people to know that so what if she has 5 kids that doesn't make her a bad mom running for VP and it is not important. What is important is her political policies. I don't agree so she will never get my vote. I am sorry if you thought I was trashing you or anyone else. I was not |
|
29 Aug 08 - 10:31 PM (#2426012) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Sorcha Jack, calm down. Breathe. NOBODY here has said what you seem to be accusing them of. I know what MY choice is...and that is ALL that matters to ME. The ONLY thing that bothers me about the Palin Scenario is that she went back to work SO soon, (with ANY child!) and that she has seemingly accepted the VP nomination (SEEMINGLY) which just means MORE time away from her newborn. The STATUS of the newborn is totally irrelevant to me. Down People CAN live a FULL and REWARDING life now, thanks to Community and State programs that are available. They ARE mostly very loving (if shy about strangers) people. I am personally acquainted with a LOT of them locally. I have never actually birthed one myself. In the days when My Mother was of childbearing age, yes, these people WERE often 'abandoned' at State Institutons, and often became the 'nursing aides', groundskeepers, maintentence staff, etc...all UN PAID. Now, they can get PAID for doing a real job. Many in my town are dishwashers, commercial cleaning people, etc, and they have their own apartments (halfway/shelter house thing). Bottom line is...they are HUMAN..and it is NOT the WORST thing that can happen to anyone. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 10:31 PM (#2426013) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Riginslinger Jack, I suspect the problem you're having with this thread relates to the verbiage in the title. The lady might very well not have known she was going to get pregnant, if so, judgement doesn't come into it. And if she did, she could not have anticipated the child's condition. The crowning oversight in the title seems to indicate that having a child with a condition like this is not a responsible action, somehow. A little editing might fix the problem. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 10:40 PM (#2426017) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: CarolC He said he didn't have a problem with the title being edited. So if people think it needs to be edited, maybe that's what should be done. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 10:44 PM (#2426018) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: GUEST,Gunilla, California Thank you Don I really enjoyed reading your response. It was so unbelievable that so many people seem so ignorant when it comes to disability. I have three children of my own. My oldest had a stroke when he was three month old, so he is disabled and needs assistance to meet all his needs. It does happen,that nobody's "fault". I can say one thing about my son, he is very loving and in his own way make an impression on people he meet. It mostly brings the best out, I have had a few encounters, but I feel sad for the few who have said crude strange remarks. You always are wishing that your child are going to become the "super star" grow up and do all those great things. But really ....... is that the most important for a happy bright future. I don't think so! Health, well balance,honesty, good character, compassion etc. is what will shape the life. So bottom line it's great that people are interested in Sarah Palin's family, but save the judgement, that's not for anyone of us to pass. Gunilla |
|
29 Aug 08 - 10:46 PM (#2426020) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: katlaughing She could have another kid any time and I could care less, but I do question her going back to work three days after having her baby and NOT being there for him to bond with her; even if she has been there somewhat as gov. she sure isn't going to be able to be around much as VP candidate and from the looks of it, big sis is going to bear the brunt of his care, which is not fair to her, imo. The main point I wanted to make is that her having a Down syndrome baby has been a rallying point for the right-to-lifers and the GOP will flaunt it, i.e. politicise it, and I DO have a problem with that! |
|
29 Aug 08 - 10:47 PM (#2426023) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: CarolC Maybe JtS is just more keenly sensitive to people having to live with disabilities, because his wife lives with multiple disabilities, and he can see how difficult it is for me. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 10:51 PM (#2426026) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Riginslinger Well, Jack just simpy needs to request a change in the title. I think women deciding to go back to work or not to go back to work is something women decide. Not being a woman, I don't have any standing to get into that one. |
|
29 Aug 08 - 11:59 PM (#2426059) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Don Firth I wasn't honking at Jack. Rereading his initial post, it is clear that he was asking for information, and did raise the question of whether it is wise to have children when one reaches "a certain age." Well—valid question and deserves an answer. Granted, the chances of birth defects do increase with the age of the parents, but the statistics are such that—well, let's put it this way. A friend of mine once met a 104 year old man who had a perfectly normal 6 year old son. The mother in this case was 19 at the time the child was born (!!), and this undoubtedly cobbled the statistics a bit. I also worked with a woman who had a child—at age 43. She commented that she thought she and her husband were through having children, but the new baby, which was perfectly normal, by the way, was their "little surprise bonus." At any age, the possibility of having a child with a physical disability, including Down syndrome, is 1) unpredictable; 2) always there; and 3) not a particularly valid reason not to have children. I didn't discuss it with the mother of the little girl with Down syndrome that I described in my post above (didn't seem appropriate somehow), but I'm quite sure she would have preferred a thousand times over that her little girl had been born normal, and I'm also quite sure she was deeply concerned about her future. The up-side was that, in most respects, the child seemed normal. And she was absolutely adorable. The outside chance that one's child will have a birth defect—or contract a disease or have an accident that leaves them disabled—is hardly a reason not to have children. Shit happens! If my parents hadn't had me because they had some foreshadowing that I might get polio down the line, I coulda been real irked about that! Now, one could wish that back in July of 1888, when Hitler's father said "I'm feeling a little frisky, Brunhilda. Let's have an early night," (snicker snicker) Mrs' Hitler had said, "Not tonight, Siegfried. We might conceive a monster!" But that sort of conversation is probably not too likely. . . . Once again, I'm not honking at Jack, but on the radio I have already heard allusions to Sarah Palin's "questionable judgement" at having another child at her age. Trying to make a political issue out of it. Ptui!!! Don Firth |
|
30 Aug 08 - 12:21 AM (#2426065) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Peace People oughta mind their own fuckin' business, no offense to anyone. |
|
30 Aug 08 - 12:37 AM (#2426074) Subject: RE: BS: Sarah Palin's judgement 5th Baby at 43 From: Amos I suggest that Ms Palin has plenty of shortcomings of a political nature without bringing her maternity into it. A
Thanks. -Joe Offer- |