Adoption: Genetic Disorders And Abortion

Women are routinely offered a variety of genetic screening tests during their first three months of pregnancy to evaluate the risk for genetic disorders in their unborn baby. Parents are most likely to consider abortion if the test comes out positive for genetic disorders such as Down Syndrome, and Cystic Fibrosis. This option has prompted many strong ethical and moral debates. Firstly, prenatal screening is often seen as a practice that is used to avoid giving birth to a disabled child, and thus, relieving the expectant parents of the (perhaps undesired) responsibility of providing additional, demanding and longer term care. Secondly, the majority of parents consider abortion when the test comes out positive, because they believe that people with genetic disorders would suffer for lifetime, however they could fulfill their lives just like everyone else. Lastly prenatal testing has a great chance of giving false positive, which is most likely lead to an abortion murdering an innocent healthy baby.

Every fetus has a unique genetic code and begins to exist at the moment of their conception (“Student Action” 1). Abortion goes against natural law, and has left

While parts of both may be true, both cannot stand side by side as completely true when discussing abortion. As they stand today, fetus rights and female rights are incompatible in arena of abortion. Even the “other side” agrees that the two cannot stand shoulder to shoulder. In a chapter entitled “Abortion Does Not Violate Human Rights”, Christian Beenfeldt quotes Brian McKinely when claiming that female rights have a higher precedence than fetus rights: “It’s actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other.” So one question remains, which more important, fetus rights or female rights? The winner of this question can be decided by one simple factor: is the fetus to be considered a true, living human being at the point of conception, or does true human life not begin until after birth? A clarification should be made here, however. In this paper it will be assumed that everyone involved in this debate considers a newborn child to be a human being. That is, at the moment of birth, a child either becomes a human being or continues to be a human being; regardless of the fetus’s life state before birth, it will be assumed that all agree that birth “confirms”, so to speak, the life and human existence of the newborn.

The debate about the legality of abortion involves debating the legal status of the fetus. If the fetus is a person, anti-choice activists argue, then abortion is murder and should be illegal. Even if the fetus is a person, though, abortion may have justified as necessary to women’s body self-govern but that wouldn’t mean that abortion is automatically ethical. Perhaps the state can’t force women to carry pregnancies to term, but it could argue that it is the most ethical choice.

Science can work only in the testable world and not say what rights humans should be given. People in the medical field always talk about how the baby, while still in the mother’s womb is considered a potential life. Some doctors call it “potential” to make it seem that it not yet a human life, and not a unique person. We tell ourselves this so that we do not have to live with the guilt of murdering another human being. Many people talk about the rights of the women, but what about the right of a child to a full life. Is Personhood is determined by man’s ability to bestow it, or are we separating humanity from the person? Many studies have estimated since the legalization of abortion in Roe vs. Wade case of 1973, that over fifty-five million babies have been killed.

However, the question frequently comes about regarding at which point of fetal development can the fetus be given “personhood.” The standard pro-life argument asserts the claim that life is present from the point of conception; a fetus possess similar physical characteristics to that of an infant such as a genetic codes that are necessary and sufficient conditions for being human, making the claims of abortion morally akin to murder. Mary Anne Warren and Judith Jarvis Thomson provide a pro-abortion argument, asserting that abortions do not take

Abortion is further viewed as a malicious act even when science becomes involved. Supporters of abortion attempt to justify their ideas by using the nature of preborn life. Pro-choice activists try to claim that we don’t know when life begins, when in reality, embryology textbooks and even other pro-choice advocates admit that human life begins when the egg and sperm unite. The promoters of abortion then go on to try and say that even though biological life begins at conception, we don’t know when personhood begins. This claim of personal identity is debunked when it is pointed out that the extremity at which rights of personhood should be granted is not something we know or don’t know, but it is something we decide. We as humans are the deciding factor in which we want to believe something should have rights. A human is created with a unique genetic identification that remains unchanged throughout his or her entire life once the egg becomes fertilized by the sperm. The being that is created by fertilization is now it’s own person and that new individual has a foundational right to life, which must be protected by the government, making abortion

Much of the ethical debate stemming from this topic lies with the issue of personhood. Personhood is a concept that defines what is it is that makes a person a “person”. There is no established criteria for this concept and it can vary depending on one’s belief. Patil, Dode & Ahirrao (2014), argue that the concept of personhood is the bridge that connects the fetus with the right to life. If one considers the fetus a person then ethically abortion is wrong. If the fetus is not a person then abortion is ethically acceptable. The issue on personhood mirrors the subjectivity of abortion debate.

The ethics of abortion have long been an issue in the world of both politics and philosophy. Abortion has surfaced many questions regarding the classification of a newly fertilized embryo and whether or not it should be considered a human being. John Noonan, in his paper, “How to Argue About Abortion,” claims that the fetus is in fact a person, from the point of conception to birth, with the right to life. Noonan argues that the main problem with recognizing fetuses as human beings is the inability of some to expand their general view of what it means to be a person (1.

Pro-life versus Pro-choice stands as the most prominent bioethical issue in American Society today. This ongoing argument of whether an woman has the right to her body and potential child has been previously rigously debated for decades. The arguemental topic of pro life versus pro choice often dances along the topic that the government has been attempting to become callous in women’s rights as a total. I stand with women on their choice of their body, and fully believe that the government dictating the right of a female to their body is not only both morally and ethically wrong, yet also extremely contradictory.

When they are brought together to form a unique DNA with 46 chromosomes, human life begins (Zugibe, 2004). After the chromosomes are brought together, there is no turning back. The genetic code for a human life has been created, and every component that makes up a human life is present from that point on. A sperm and an egg cannot develop or continue to live apart from each other; when they are united, they are one being and can only continue to develop (Gargaro, 2002). Each woman also has this biological composition of 46 chromosomes, which shows that both an unborn child and a mother are human. If we are to give concern to the human life of a woman, then we must do the same for an unborn child. Banning abortion is not a way of forgetting about the significance of the woman’s life; instead, banning abortion is defending the significance of a new life not yet able to defend itself.

Pre-screening for disabilities and genetic enhancement are vital factors in the decision to place restrictions for selective genetic abortion. All human life should be of equal worth, supporting the ideal that life-and-death decisions for seriously compromised newborns should not be based on the quality of life (CITE 3). Screening for genetic diseases through the use of in vitro fertilization, or IVF, limits and excludes those with disabilities from our society, exposing limits on morality. These include transgression of divine laws, transgression of natural laws, introduction of an unacceptable risk of harm, introduction of a threat to genetic diversity, introduction of a threat to one’s common genetic heritage, paradoxical counterproductively, a misuse of social resources, a widened gap between the “haves and “have nots”, promotion of social conformity and homogeneity, and lastly undermining free choice (Fisher, 2013). From these points it is important to recognize the impact it has upon our society, and how we perceive, and behave towards those with a disability. The practise of introducing selective abortion through the use of IVF and genetic testing will create a hostile environment going forward into the future for those who escape detection before birth. This will cause potential discrimination against those with a disability, making them liable to be looked down upon by the community and unfit to be alive (Fisher, 2013). Thus this can create a second class or even a

This paper reflects upon the reasons that prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion have become so much more popular and well-known within the recent years. It discusses reasons for the tests’ increasing popularity like: the disruption to families caused by the birth of a child with a disability, the potential quality of life of the unborn child, and the financial implications of screening and testing. Another main point that is touched upon is, the attitudes of able-bodied people towards disabilities and the desire for perfection. The author considers that maybe because of the influence of the “cultural turn”, the community of able-bodied people are experiencing an influx in the theme of ableism.

Abortion is always argued with different cases and play a main role in medical ethics (blackwell.,p291).It is evidently reasonable for some to argue that in moral situation, abortion is a murder and it should be illegal, while others may claim that abortion is woman’s right when concerning on autonomy ( The abortion debate in Australia). Opponents of making abortion legal claim that abortion is a kind of murder on extend of moral situation. It is always regarded as a sin to kill a person who is no aggressor in most moral communities (new ethics 1). Fetus is a biologically human as it is not just a part of the mothers, such as a lung or a kidney. On the contrary, it is obvious that fetus is human due to he or she has genetic code of human and human parents as well (abortion myth p5). Moreover, it has potentiality to be a person with primary moral worth (text book p210-211). As Gillion (new ethics) pointed out, every person has his right to life, especially he is not an aggressor. This point is also been pointed by (Rebecca and john,Blackwell p204), “embryos has a right to life” .The fetus is innocent and

According to the findings by Mariotti (2012), the psychosocial and emotional components are an integral part of every woman’s pregnancy, and she can make decisions of whether to sustain life in her own uterus or end it (p. 269). At the same time, numerous studies have questioned the personhood of the fetus to provide well-evidenced approaches to evaluation of its social and legal status. Does a woman provide it with all necessary resources and substances like a donor? Does she have a right to extract it from her body in case she does not want to give it life, has some health care issues that put her and the baby at risk, or carries a fetus that was the result of a rape? All those questions are easier to ask than answer, but women should have the right to do with their body everything they want.