Talking Fairness

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6175797.html

This seems to be far more about abortion than ‘eugenics’ — as it is, the only party opting out of having the presumed disabled child is the parents (the mother) and I seriously doubt they are doing so with any thought of the human population as a whole.

So, the real question is if it is ethical to abort a fetus that one intended on carrying to term until it was discovered that the fetus would mature into a child with a serious disorder?

This is the only important question because challenges of accuracy here are rather the same to challenges of accuracy on any medical test; the only difference is the implication of action taken by the mother. If the fact that “[e]ighty to 95 percent of women who receive a Down Syndrome diagnosis after such screening abort” did not exist, these test’s accuracy wouldn’t be so strongly questioned.

And I cannot say so easily one way or the other.

On one hand, I mildly support a woman’s right to abortion, so a woman deciding to abort only after receiving this sort of news… is in no way doing anything illegal or the like. And it does not seem like such an action should be anything but legal.

On the other hand, it does seem a fine-line. But it is a line that I believe, for a mother, is not easily blurred. The choice to abort seems not simple for a pregnant woman that wants a child, and I do not think such women will cross the line of “Well, I don’t want a red haired… IQ of only 107… below average in sports… less than attractive… child.”

A few last points:
Even if you disagree with my last point, any argument that includes the expressive idea, “Where will it stop?” is a very faulty argument. We are human beings, and we have the innate ability to consciously choose, so it stops where we want it to stop. To use future debates as hurdles for currents debates is, by definition, “getting ahead of oneself.”

Secondly, for those who read this article and also fear that “…the testing will mostly be utilized by affluent people, leaving disabled people primarily a phenomenon of the poor,” you are wrong.

In part, this goes to the primary question of the discussion, but if it is decided that abortion can be used as a ‘luxury’ based on ‘pickiness’ and not “what is best for all involved” than it becomes the same as all other luxuries.

Society should always strive to give every human the world’s high end medical care, however, no one should resist such things simply because it can be provided to those who can afford it. There is not anything inherently wrong with inequality.