Prenatal testing ethical?

[Kay]

Is it ethical to have an abortion because a fetus is found to have a mental disorder such as Downs Syndrome? What about for serious, life-threatening conditions such as Trisomy 18? If it is unethical, should those tests be made illegal?

Yes, I realize that this seems like simply another debate over abortion, but it's more complicated. In the future, this could result in, essentially, near-total standardization of children. "Your child is going to have ADHD if born. Why not just kill it and make a better one?"

OTOH, some potential parents might lack the money/good insurance to cope with having a severely impaired child.

Arguably, there's no reason why anyone should have to go through so much trouble to give birth to a baby that will almost certainly die within a month.

Does this still apply to someone who would have a normal life expectancy, but would be probably be permanently dependent on others? What about someone who just wouldn't be "perfect" enough? Where would you draw the line?

[The Nomadic Trooper]

I'm pro-choice.

This is actually a good basis for my beliefs, as well.

If a parent already questioned their stand on having the kid, only to be told they will have a mental defect or life-threatening disease, that only makes the strain that much more, so imo that baby should get aborted.

I'm sure any arguement I come up with will make it seem like I only want a perfect breed of children running about, but I will honestly say that children with mental defects such as downs or anything that is crippling their quality of life in proportion to their age in a significant way should be aborted.

They do not contribute to society and are like constantly taking care of a baby/small child.

Constantly having to watch them to make sure they don't do something they shouldn't despite their age.

[eclipse]

This is such a complicated matter!

Is it okay to abort your kid if he/she will be born with a birth defect that will cause nothing but pain before his/her eventual death a few days later? What about chromosome disorders? Or the wrong set of chromosomes?

I think the government should keep the hell out of this one. Whatever the decision, the parents must be the ones that have the last word.

[Fayt Zelpher]

This is such a complicated matter!

Is it okay to abort your kid if he/she will be born with a birth defect that will cause nothing but pain before his/her eventual death a few days later? What about chromosome disorders? Or the wrong set of chromosomes?

I think the government should keep the hell out of this one. Whatever the decision, the parents must be the ones that have the last word.

I think this sums it up pretty well. I mean, I think that ultimately, regardless of the justifications that the government might have for preventing abortions of healthy babies, it's too much of a gray area when you're looking at a 99% chance of death within a month, with no one knows how much pain involved.

Especially if you're dealing with the US and a defunct 'health care' system (and I'm hesitant to call what the US has a 'system', let alone 'health-care') when the parents may well end up bankrupt and worse off because of trying to care for a child when the care needed to prevent near-certain death is going to run in the 6-7 figure range. Ultimately, if the government isn't going to help care for these children, they've got no right to tell the parents what they can or cannot do.

I mean, I probably sound pretty twisted to talk about financial considerations when dealing with life-or-death situations. But that's what the US has. If you think I'm twisted, go complain to your Congressperson and have him/her try to get something changed.

[Lux Aeterna]

I'm going to agree with Eclipse and postulate that this matter is rather delicate and intricate.

I wish it were as black and white as always keeping it alive unless illegitimate (keeping them is okay, but forcing the child isn't fair), but it's not. Actually, a lot of what Eclipse said coerces with what I would have stated: the government interfering with this deep and personal matter is out of their grounds. Ultimately it's up to the discretion of the parents whether or not to keep the child.

What I don't agree with (not with Eclipse, but the general idea) is if the child would have a mental or physical disability, that the parents should kill them off. It's still complicated, but as long as the disability isn't life-threatening, then I believe one should save the child. For starters, life is precious (in most eyes, though some more than others). Why deny the child that chance because they wouldn't get to experience the world like most people? Second, every human has a chance to contribute to society, however minor. That second grader with paralyzed legs could someday invent the cure for cancer. The autistic baby with a seemingly hopeless future could make wondrous technical advances (I heard somewhere that autistic people are better inclined for technicalities, in exchange for lowered social skill).

I admit that this is personal opinion and it's still up to the parents, but I see it in the ultimate interest that unless certain criteria are fulfilled, keep them alive.

[Kanami]

Eh, I agree with "GTFO Government" but I'm going to have to disagree with Iksel regarding disabled children and life being sacred. Life is.... life. But when does a "thing" become a person? This is going into the abortion argument, but is a fetus a "person?" I'm pro-death (abortion/euthenasia/death penalty) so I'm probably being biased here.

But I don't think it's neccessary to look at a fetus and think of it to be anymore living then a pot plant. It's alive, but it's value is.... well, not sacred. I mean the female body develops how many potential eggs in their life? Should we grieve over them not turning into human beings? Do you worship your own semen as sacred? XD

I don't support killing off disabled people, but if the "fetus" is a "defect" then I don't see a problem with destroying it and starting anew.

Unless you're some horny rabbit, keeping the disabled child, decreases the chances of the next egg being fertilised, which "could" of been the next Einstein. It's really pointless talking about "what if's" because they work both ways(negatively too), and apply to everything.

[Lux Aeterna]

Iksel

Call me Lux. Everyone else does. =P It's just a temporary dual name change with the member currently named Rorona. xD

But when does a "thing" become a person? This is going into the abortion argument, but is a fetus a "person?"

If you're asking my personal opinion on this, then I'm going to say right after the sperm enters the egg. Because that starts it on the path to being born, but at that point to me, it's simply an unborn human.

But I don't think it's neccessary to look at a fetus and think of it to be anymore living then a pot plant. It's alive, but it's value is.... well, not sacred. I mean the female body develops how many potential eggs in their life? Should we grieve over them not turning into human beings? Do you worship your own semen as sacred? XD

You're misinterpreting my words. I simply put it at the idea such that life is precious as soon as they have the chance to live. It's not so much always looking at it from the perspective that life is sacred in concept, but rather that... wouldn't most people consider their own lives to be precious?

I don't support killing off disabled people, but if the "fetus" is a "defect" then I don't see a problem with destroying it and starting anew.

Well compounded what I said earlier, I disagree because a fetus is essentially an unborn person in my eyes. It depends on what you define as defect too... Will they die in child birth? Sure, okay, end it there. Will they be in a wheelchair all their lives? Then things get more complicated.

Admittedly, I'm biased too, as a counterpart to your pro-death to your stance I choose life except under certain circumstances (but again don't think it should be against the law since I still support parental discretion). I know I'm idealistic shut up

[Kanami]

If you're asking my personal opinion on this, then I'm going to say right after the sperm enters the egg. Because that starts it on the path to being born, but at that point to me, it's simply an unborn human.

Well, I don't really expect anything to happen in Serious Discussion other then people throwing around their opinions, and since I did pinpoint you specifically, I'm happy with "your opinion" XD

You're misinterpreting my words. I simply put it at the idea such that life is precious as soon as they have the chance to live. It's not so much always looking at it from the perspective that life is sacred in concept, but rather that... wouldn't most people consider their own lives to be precious?

Well I'm somewhat relieved that I don't have to query why life is sacred (concept) since that really would make you and idealistic fool. The part where we disagree though is the ability of the fetus, I doubt the fetus has the ability to consider it's own life valuable. It probably will at a later stage, but at fetus level it remains merely a "potential" and considering how potentials come at the expense of some other potential, don't think one prioritizes over the other due to the ordering. (Older brother more important then younger brother)

Solely being a living organism apparently doesn't constitute as the human version of "living" (brain dead)

And I really question whether a fetus can think for itself.

It depends on what you define as defect too... Will they die in child birth? Sure, okay, end it there. Will they be in a wheelchair all their lives? Then things get more complicated.

Admittedly, I'm biased too, as a counterpart to your pro-death to your stance I choose life except under certain circumstances (but again don't think it should be against the law since I still support parental discretion). I know I'm idealistic shut up

Defect is any issue really, from a birthmark (harmless) to missing a few limbs. As we've generally agreed it's up to the parents.

If the parents can love their kid regardless of their child not having any legs then the kid should be allowed to live. (Wow aren't I arrogant XD)

But if the parents are frowning and scowling just cause their kid has ADHD..... well I believe that the first 10,20 years are more important then the remaining 60~80. So I'd probably let the child die. I've seen cases where the parents don't care for their kid, and they don't turn out pretty :/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The overall question here really remains pro/anti-abortion.

Otherwise I think we've generally agreed so far that disabilities/defects/ailments aren't all that important. (Unless it results in a short-painful-lifespan)

[Phoenix Wright]

I think that if parents (rather, a couple I guess) are allowed to kill their would-be kids if they have some sort of ailment or defect, minor or major, then there should also be regulations on people who want to become parents. In other words, tests and laws that judge whether the couple is fit for parenting or not.

Edited January 2, 2011 by Phoenix Wright