By murder, I mean abortion.
By maiming, I mean sterilising parents.
By less, I mean that if pregnancies with Down go on at present rate, but without abortion, we would be overwhelmed by how many people have Down syndrome.
There is exactly ONE way to have fewer such pregnancies, without selective maiming : YOUNGER MARRIAGES, esp. YOUNGER MOTHERS.
A statistics I read a few years ago* (ten, fifteen or so), compared the risk for Down (even on the individual level it is a risk, since living with people having that condition can be quite a task) for mothers at 20 vs mothers at 40. No longer sure if the comparison was for first time mothers or included those having already born, I think it was for first time mothers.*
At age 20, the risk was 1:10,000.
At age 40, the risk was 1:100.
The age of the father was not quite unimportant. Augment the risk as per mother's age with 11% for each decade a father is above 35. Here is my calculation as to how this works out:
Mother age 20, father up to 35: 0,0001
Mother age 20, father 45: 0,000111
Mother age 20, father 55: 0,00012321
Mother age 20, father 65: 0,0001367631
Mother age 40, father up to 35: 0,01
Mother age 40, father 45: 0,0111
Mother age 40, father 55: 0,012321
Mother age 40, father 65: 0,01367631
So, father's age makes some difference, mother's a lot.
I think this stat is about mothers bearing child for the first time. Why? Because all ovula (with their genetic setup of ideally 23, sometimes 24 chromosomes) are produced well before she becomes a mother, when she was a fetus, during the pregnancy. Unlike male production of semen, it cannot be affected by older balls. An ovulum is not gaining any chromosome because it gets older. Male semen does not get old, it is its source which does. But for Down syndrome, it is the lesser risk factor, by far. So, female ovula are either correct or faulty from start. This would either not show any difference by age, which is not the case, or, the difference by age must come from less good ovula getting more exposed at ovulations.
That is, if an ovulum was bad and on the outside of the ovary, it was eliminated well before the woman became old enough to be a mother, it was elminated while she was a fetus.
But if it was bad and further in, it was somewhat less likely to be eliminated.
The ovula further in are more likely to be exposed the more ovulation a woman has had before. That means, if she loses most ovulations by menstruation (or by early miscarriage, including by deliberately murdering by day after pill or by an effect of the other pill if taken too late), the ovulations she has at 40 are likelier to involve one of the ovula further in.
This means, that whether the statistic was about first births only or about any birth, the women at forty are less at risk if they have born children before.
If the stat was about first births only, obviously those bearing a 5th child or a 10th child or a 20th child at 40 are less at risk, since not included in the statistic.
If the stat was about any birth, those bearing a 1st child at 40 would be above and those bearing a 5th or 20th child at forty well below the medium risk.
And this brings us to another part of today's society : girls are, through feminism, encouraged to get a carreer of their own before "chosing to have a child", they are (like boys, through sexual liberalism) encouraged to indulge in sex without "so chosing", they are in most Western countries (and some states of United States) legally barred from marrying before 18 (Italy imposed that on Rome, after taking it in 1870, Communists imposed that on the former Czar Empire, after 1917, some states had already gone some way that way - including both Czars and Scandinavian Monarchies, many states followed, France lifted the age barrier from 15 to 18 in 2006, I read about it when I was considering going back to a gipsy girl whom I had known when she was 14 in 2005).
Over and above legal barriers to marriage, the wages today are so low on the average, that is formerly speaking "on the male side", because women are supposed to contribute a wage too ("for their own freedom"!) and entry into "active life" (as per breadwinning**) has been highly delayed for many.
If there were no abortions, we would all see the price of this in very much more people with Down syndrome.
But abortion is not a solution, because it is murder. And sterilising some is maiming, a crime, besides the heredity in Down is not related to any specific mutation, therefore this most drastic conatal disease is not strictly speaking a hereditary disease. The ones that give us babies with Down syndrome cannot be known beforehand, since usually not having such themselves.***
Even if one parent should have Down (as happens in rape), this does not even guarantee the child will have so. During the splicing of chromosome setup when sexual cells are produced, the cells from which they are produced will have three chromosomes 21, therefore part of the sex cells will have one, part of them 2 chromosomes 21. This will work out as a one in two chance of transmitting a dominant mutation. So, with one parent having Down, the risk should be about 1:2, 50%, with both parents having Down, 3:4, 75%.
Note, even a 75% chance of someone having Down when born is no reason to murder him during pregnancy.
And even less is testing if both parents are aged, and agreeing to murder if there is a risk.
The ONE way to have fewer feti and babies with Down syndrome without either murder or maiming, fewer than those coming to being (but mostly aborted, that is murdered) now, is to reverse the "progress" which has considerably delayed child bearing for so many women in the West compared to 100 years ago.
Girls should marry and bear children earlier, families with children be less dependent on two wages, marriage age should be lowered for both sexes (also for other reasons), but especially for girls.
As to those who do advocate murder, I leave the response to CMI (on their better note today):
The UK (with many other countries also falling into this category) appears to be a society of contradictions, with a person’s value apparently only assigned at birth! Attack a person with Down’s syndrome for their disability and it’s called a hate crime, rightly dealt with by the condemnation of society and the full force of the law. Yet develop a test to screen them out of society and murder them in the womb and most don’t bat an eyelid! [Footnote:] Ironically as I write this article it is National Hate Crime Awareness Week in the U.K., 8–15 October 2016, and Prime Minister Theresa May has released a statement saying, “Hate crime has no place in Britain. … everybody living in this country is equal”. May, T., Hate Crime Awareness Week 2016: Theresa May’s message, gov.uk, accessed 11 October 2016.
Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Gregory the Thaumaturg
Link to the article by CMI:
CMI : An inconsistent society—An upside down° view of Down's syndrome abortion
by Phil Robinson | Published: 17 November 2016 (GMT+10)
* Yes, I know, it is lousy Academic style to give a statement without being able to show the reference. Sorry, happens. I think the subject is important enough for these things to be stated even with bad academic style. ** Some countries with good study purse/study loan systems, like Sweden used to have, do in fact make it possible for someone to raise children while on study loan / study purse rather than earning wages. *** I recall a very misinformed poster by National Socialists, showing some rather ugly people with presumably Down syndrome and asking why eugenics is considered so criminal. ° I recall an Orthodox priest who observed that "the N-word, Noitroba, is backward thinking." It is.