[C06aka]

While the personhood and rights that the unborn have are hotly debated, the term genocide, as defined by the person who coined the term, points out that it doesn't mean the immediate murder of all people in that group:

>Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups

[scpedicini]

Yeah I hear what you're saying. However, I still don't think it would be considered genocide in the conventional sense because the woman is not being compelled to have an abortion, it is an individual choice.

Even if the percentage of women electing to have an abortion is high, they're not acting as a singular cohesive body with the collective goal to eliminate all children having Down syndrome.

[C06aka]

How many children do you have? For each of ours, there is a strong push for early genetic testing from everyone, primary care, OBs, friends and family. For our first, they were flagged in an ultrasound and they asked whether we wanted to terminate (kiddo ended up without down's, even the Harmony test is only 80% accurate among high risk mothers). The manner in which the "choice" is presented is heavily biased at a systemic level.

[2lwxxtj]

People with Down Syndrome are not in any sense a nation or national group. It is not applicable.