Not sad or unfortunate
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Monday, Sept. 2, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
The print version of the Living story “Older moms are becoming increasingly common” (Aug. 20 and TribLIVE.com) appeared with an “Age issues” sidebar that said older women have a higher chance of giving birth to a baby with a chromosomal defect, such as Down syndrome, portraying that like it's a sad, unfortunate event. It's not — period.
My “older mom” gave birth to my Down-syndrome sister on June 12, 2011. About halfway through her pregnancy (her 10th), we began to notice signs of Down syndrome, such as almond eyes and a little dimple nose (proving my mom's theory that Down-syndrome babies look like leprechauns). When Annie was born, I was so excited to have a sister (after two boys), let alone one with Down syndrome!
I thought of the kids at school who have disabilities. I had already planned her career! When Annie was born, she had failure to thrive due to aspiration. Now, she is feeding herself with a spoon! She is great! Her biggest feat? Jumping at age 2! Yeah! Whether she's swaggering around the doctor's office or meeting med students, she is a joy to all!
The writer, 12, is a student at St. Thomas More School in Bethel Park.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Consequences in space
- Tragedy sensationalized
- Cover many stances
- Dingell’s lesson
- Tragedy’s ramifications I
- Tragedy’s ramifications III
- Stabbings reveal heroics
- Valley musical superb
- Resurrection? Really?
- Paying for ‘Fayette’s Folly’
- The Obama Doctrine I wonder …