ALEXIS SEBRING
Perspectives Assistant
With the proliferation of prenatal testing, new ethical dilemmas have emerged and they are more complex than abortion. A life should not be taken away because of a prenatal diagnosis of a genetic disorder, and if it is, the mother or couple should be fully informed of a range of choices that they have.
“Abortion rights supporters — who believe that a woman has the right to make decisions about her own body — have had to grapple with the reality that the right to choose may well be used selectively to abort fetuses deemed genetically undesirable,” according to a May 17 article, “Genetic Testing and Abortion,” in The New York Times.
During pregnancy, a woman receives routine tests such as ultrasound and blood tests. However, for those who desire more detailed tests about the health of their baby, prenatal genetic screening is performed. Two types of these tests recommended by doctors or sought out by concerned women include Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villus Sampling (CVS). Amniocentesis is recommended to pregnant women older than 35 or to those who may have a baby with a chromosomal disorder. It consists of taking and analyzing samples of the woman’s amniotic fluid. CVS can help detect fetal problems earlier in the pregnancy and has the ability to take the place of Amniocentesis if there is a lack of amniotic fluid, according to webmd.com.
“Researchers estimate there are more than 1,000 genetic tests available or in development that could be used for fetuses-including ones for conditions that aren’t life threatening could be lessened by surgery or don’t appear until adulthood,” according to, “A Brother’s Survey Touches a Nerve in Abortion Fight,” published in the Wall Street Journal on Oct. 3, 2005.
While genetic testing can allow for prevention or treatment of genetic diseases and helps the pregnant mother learn how to take care of the baby during pregnancy, it has gone too far when couples base their decision to abort on whether or not their child will be “perfect.”
It is immoral to abort based on conditions such as Down syndrome or Asperger syndrome. The mother or couple wants a baby, they just don’t want it to be “abnormal.”
Choosing to abort a baby simply based on the fact that it is not perfect is crossing the line. Messing with nature is inconsequential. There exists an arguable lack of morality in choosing what kind of baby to give birth to, especially if it has the ability to live a healthy life.
It doesn’t stop here. People that decide to get an abortion because of the prenatal test results are not getting all the information.
One-quarter of fetuses (of researched couples) have been aborted based on the positive diagnosis of Gaucher disease, a metabolic disorder, according to “The conundrum of genetic testing,” a September 19 article in the Los Angeles Times. However, because of the lack of knowledge, couples failed to realize that more than half of the fetuses deemed infected lived perfectly normal lives.
In fact, “The researchers found that among couples who met with a Gaucher expert and learned that the disease was treatable, only 8% chose to terminate their pregnancy,” according to the report.
This shows that genetic screening should not be the only determinant of a baby’s life.
Genetic counselors provide support and information to families who will have children with birth defects.
“It depends on the family and the situation. We are non-directive. We try to help families clarify their values and understand what the potential outcomes can be so that they make the best decision,” said Sherry Pena, a genetic counselor in San Francisco.
With technology comes responsibility, and there is a fine line between preventing birth defects and preventing the birth of defective children. It is immoral to have an abortion just because the baby is going to have a genetic disorder. If it does happen, genetic counselors and doctors need to be sure they give concise and current information to women, because developments are constantly being made in the medical field that can improve the lives of individuals with a disorder.
10-04-2007