Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

abaya · 11-21-2007, 01:25 AM

So I was in my Icelandic class the other day, and I heard from a Polish woman in my class that she was pregnant. In Iceland, apparently you cannot see a doctor about your pregnancy until you are 12 weeks along (the end of the first trimester, basically), which I find weird... but even more weird, they *require* you to get prenatal testing at that point, to determine if the child may have Down's syndrome. The Polish women felt very uncomfortable about this, as did I (I have never really heard much about this testing, and always thought it was optional, at least in the US).

I've been doing some reading about it since then, and discussing it with ktspktsp. My gut feeling is that it's unethical. I am pro-choice, but I find the idea of getting an abortion due to a non-fatal "imperfection" in your child to be just way off. It sets a precedent that people with Down's syndrome do not contribute anything to society, because within a generation or two (if, as they say, 90% of women who find out their child has Down's syndrome, do abort), there will no longer be anyone with Down's syndrome. One has to wonder what the effect on human society will be.

People also abort for other non-fatal issues discovered in testing, such as Klinefelter's syndrome (smaller testicles, limited language learning ability) and even cleft palates. I mean... cleft palates! Wow. The whole thing just smacks of eugenics to me. At what point does it become okay to abort for whatever reasons one feels like? (Including gender, e.g. in China--which I also find unethical.) Where does one draw the line?

So, is it good (ethical--in a broad, social sense, not a personal one) to basically stop producing an entire subpopulation of human beings? Of course, we are not talking about exterminating those who are already living, thank goodness, but still... eventually they will die out, and if no more are being born, then voila... no more people with Down's syndrome, ever again. There are many people who wouldn't mind that happening, I suppose. I do have a problem with it. A bit too distopian for me. I have volunteered with disabled people, and overall I see them as having a valid role in society. Maybe not everyone agrees with me.

I'd like to hear what you guys have to say.

11-21-2007, 01:25 AM	#1 (permalink)
abaya Location: Iceland	Prenatal Down's syndrome testing So I was in my Icelandic class the other day, and I heard from a Polish woman in my class that she was pregnant. In Iceland, apparently you cannot see a doctor about your pregnancy until you are 12 weeks along (the end of the first trimester, basically), which I find weird... but even more weird, they require you to get prenatal testing at that point, to determine if the child may have Down's syndrome. The Polish women felt very uncomfortable about this, as did I (I have never really heard much about this testing, and always thought it was optional, at least in the US). I've been doing some reading about it since then, and discussing it with ktspktsp. My gut feeling is that it's unethical. I am pro-choice, but I find the idea of getting an abortion due to a non-fatal "imperfection" in your child to be just way off. It sets a precedent that people with Down's syndrome do not contribute anything to society, because within a generation or two (if, as they say, 90% of women who find out their child has Down's syndrome, do abort), there will no longer be anyone with Down's syndrome. One has to wonder what the effect on human society will be. People also abort for other non-fatal issues discovered in testing, such as Klinefelter's syndrome (smaller testicles, limited language learning ability) and even cleft palates. I mean... cleft palates! Wow. The whole thing just smacks of eugenics to me. At what point does it become okay to abort for whatever reasons one feels like? (Including gender, e.g. in China--which I also find unethical.) Where does one draw the line? So, is it good (ethical--in a broad, social sense, not a personal one) to basically stop producing an entire subpopulation of human beings? Of course, we are not talking about exterminating those who are already living, thank goodness, but still... eventually they will die out, and if no more are being born, then voila... no more people with Down's syndrome, ever again. There are many people who wouldn't mind that happening, I suppose. I do have a problem with it. A bit too distopian for me. I have volunteered with disabled people, and overall I see them as having a valid role in society. Maybe not everyone agrees with me. I'd like to hear what you guys have to say. __________________ And think not you can direct the course of Love; for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course. --Khalil Gibran