[ SECRET POST #2210 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2210 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________



17.


__________________________________________________



18.


__________________________________________________



19.


__________________________________________________











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 101 secrets from Secret Submission Post #316.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I find the tone of this comment unsettling. :/

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, damn those scientific facts.

[kallanda_lee]

You know what's also a scientific fact?

You can screen for Down's syndrome and choose to not carry the pregnancy to term if it's unacceptable to you.

Who says the pregnancy was planned? Who says she didn't have screening? Who says she didn't ponder/understand the risks? Who says she wouldn't have lovingly raised a baby with Down's?

You do not know this woman's personal life, motivations - nor should you. It's her risk to take.

[thene]

That's not the only risk, though. My parents had their last child when my mother was almost 45 and my father was 49. They were both dead before my little brother finished college.

[(Anonymous)]

Anybody who has a child risks creating an orphan. Death is no respecter of age.

[(Anonymous)]

This and plus they died younger than average age as well. Death really don't give two fucks about how old you are.

[thene]

Uh, yes it does? Age is kinda a major governing factor when it comes to mortality. You can't realistically disregard it.

[thene]

Indeed - I was 11 when my mother died. Like Downs, it's a risk for anyone but one which is much much more common if you have children later in life. And before death (and therefore much more commonly) the children of people who left it until late have to become carers to someone (two people, in our case) whose physical and neural health, and mobility, is declining (which can also mean children get assigned the responsibility to raise their younger siblings). Support for young carers and for bereaved children is pretty damn patchy, too.

It is only a risk, but it's a significant one - much more common than Downs - and one which society as a whole fails to face up to & offer support for. You really can't ignore the age factor here.

[kallanda_lee]

True, but you never know how fate will turn out. I went to school with a girl whose parents had her in their twenties, yet they both died when her 3 younger sibling were still in school, within a mere few months of each other. It increases your likelihood of you seeing your kids grow up, but it's no guarantee.

And in this case, while the mother is older, the father is in fact exceptionally young - so if you go by that logic, they'll have their dad for a very long time, even though they might lose their mum earlier.

[thene]

Indeed, I just know firsthand how shit society is at support young carers and orphans, so I can't look at a new parent in their mid-forties without considering that risk of declining health and mortality - age being a primary risk factor for both of those things, which are far far more common than Downs.

[kallanda_lee]

Oh I understand that. I think it's natural that our own experiences shape the way we see the world. Sorry about your parents, that must have sucked...

I think I just have a naturally strong reaction when people feel the need to police people reproductive choices (mostly women's reproductive choices).

Obviously some ages are more ideal to have a kid than others, but life is not ideal, some people meet their soulmate late in life etc. And I think they've got just as much right as anyone else to still try for a family.

[(Anonymous)]

Should police officers, soldiers and people in other higher risk careers not have kids?

[thene]

Feel free to do the math on their risk of disability, chronic illness and death over the next 20 years and compare it to that of people in the age 45-70 age group, anon.

[(Anonymous)]

More like the implication that individuals with Downs Syndrome are lesser.

[(Anonymous)]

They're not lesser, but they're a lot more work. Normal children grow up and then you end up dedicating less and less effort into them until they become adults. With Down's kids, you pretty much have to dedicate your entire life to them, and you don't really get much downtime.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. It's difficult. No one is saying that it isn't. But it's a little screwed up to suggest that it's dumb to have kids in your forties because you might run the risk of OH NO, NOT HAVING THE PERFECT NEUROTYPICAL CHILD. And if that bothers you, don't run the risk, I guess. Nothing the original Down's comment said indicated that the mother of the Down's child was miserable, just the commenter's thoughts on their second cousin's choice.

[(Anonymous)]

Uh, no it's not? Downs Syndrome is at least something people can function with, but "risk of disorder in your child when you get pregnant later in life" is a perfectly valid warning. It's not about having the perfect child, but some disorders lead to a very painful, short life, and the risk of that is important. If you're any kind of parent at all, you should consider it.

[(Anonymous)]

I totally agree with everything you're saying, I am not trying to deny scientific fact. It is something to take into consideration.

But the general tone reflected to me by the original comment (and apparently others) that allowing oneself to have a child with Down's is somehow irresponsible denigrates the personhood of the child and suggests that such a child would be a workload, not a family member.

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I see. No worries then--I must have misinterpreted your comment. :)

[(Anonymous)]

While higher than the population risk, a 45-year-old woman's risk of having a child with Down's Syndrome is only 2-4%. Meaning there's a 96%-98% chance of her NOT having a child with Down's. Hardly a "crazy" risk.

[(Anonymous)]

I find the phrasing "if you're going to have biological children, you shouldn't be in your forties" funny, because it vaguely suggests they could just switch their age dial to thirties or twenties instead. Just me?

[(Anonymous)]

Yup. It's their choice.