Selective abortion of disabled fetuses

Introduction

It is evident that nowadays many public health officials as well as medical professionals are usually promoting the aspect of prenatal diagnosis whereby they encourage abortion, upholding the intention to eliminate some categories of people who are disabled. For instance, people who suffer from disabilities such as Down syndrome, spina bifida as well as other disabilities through selective abortions upon recognition. However, the resistance of these selective abortions by those who advocate for the rights of disabled is ultimately mainly related to how we basically define ourselves (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009). This is mainly because there has been a realization that the suffering and tragedy stereotyped notions of the disabled people usually results from their isolation from the large society.

Moreover, disabled people who do not have any connections with the rest of other disabled people in the community usually are frequently afflicted with the assignment of the social role of burdensome and tragic existence (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009). However, the inconvenience is usually minimized when the disabled people undergoes a transition into everyday typical life. Thus, it is mainly due to the discriminatory attitudes as well as ensuing ostracism which makes their life difficult. Hence this oppression is what is actually disabling about disability and not their conditions (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009). However, this necessitates the ethical argument about the selective abortions done on disabled fetuses upon recognition during prenatal screening.

Ethical argument on selective abortion of disabled fetuses

Disability is not inability. However, the selection of children through prenatal tests has been deeply entrenched in our cultures hence it is rare to radically critique it without being subjected to heavy disapproval (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009). However, since in most places it is socially accepted to subject disabled people to prejudice this creates pressure for many people to undergo prenatal screening. Thus, the bizarre involved in separation of lives into protect able (post-birth) and non-protect able (pre-birth) is however invisible to many people even though causing unease to many others. It is also true to socially accept the recognition in some way of the grief and pain which these abortions causes to women as well as the difficulty encountered by many couples before they decide to abort. However, after the abortion of a disabled fetus, a woman may to some extent  be subjected to mourn for the child faced with the real situation of a dying or dead baby, irrespective of the child being disabled or not.

However, these selective abortions merely highlights the actual nature of selection, thus since it is not over if the child dies or lives (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009). Therefore, the fetuses remains to be a child to be grieved for in case abortion is chosen whereas not for the purpose of protection from abortion irrespective of the nature, that is, disabled or not. The nurses and doctors also see the woman’s grief, but instead do nothing in preventing the root cause. These selective abortions are somehow agonizing and difficult choices, and sometimes doing a disservice to greater number of women due to the anticipated consequences. Moreover, the psychological effects associated with such kind of a decision are also to some extent astonishing (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009).

In comparison, does life usually have value for all the human beings who are living, both able-bodied and disabled alike? Then if so, what could be the justification of us the living human beings to deprive a fetus of a life which in other words would have been worthwhile? Also what about those people who were born disabled and are successful in different fields as well as rightly are objecting the assumptions which are held, which indicate that their life is worthless. However, in this context, it is critical to understand that it is possible for people to have objective interests probably on things which they usually don’t take keen interest on them. Thus, life itself however short or long it may probably be it is always the objective interest  of the child as there are also other general human good which life may normally contain. Thus, just like any other baby these fetuses disabled or not have objective interests on their future life which is in fact of a kind which can’t be regarded less important because they are not yet able to understand or assert them (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009).

More so, pregnancy mainly involves the body of the mother, but we should also remember that pregnancy is not always the only bodily support form. For instance, a woman may give birth alone in an area which is isolated whereby the child may be entirely dependent on her body for weeks whereby this involves her choosing either to breastfeed or not, thus this dependency is equitable to the prenatal phase. Moreover, it is neither in any of such cases when the child’s dependency may mean she may be of lower moral status, instead, this dependency helps in creating a moral claim on the dependent person (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009). Thus, parenthood usually makes some greater demands whereas in case of disabilities the demands become more serious. However, we can’t respond to these demands by merely taking away the life of the child, but to offer support to the family as well as the child until he or she grows up and becomes dependent on him or herself. This is because even the children who are not disabled have their demands too. Also what about those who develops disabilities after birth? Do we kill them in order to evade their demands? More so, there are so many disabled people who are more capable and productive than able ones depending on the motivation and encouragement as well as the support they receive (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009). Moreover, parenthood is not in any way involved with the selection of children we actually decide we want. Thus, this is not as we might in any way want a certain possession but also about that unconditional welcome and love of any child whom we are blessed with.

Thus, we should always have the courage of questioning the set up institutions of selection, that is, not just the extension of these selections to wider categories of human being who are unwanted (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009). Hence we have to defend the killings of disabled fetuses at the parent’s discretion because parental autonomy can’t be extended to a point of deciding between death and life of the child by the parent. Thus, the aspect of dependency should not in any way be used as a reason to terminate human life before birth. This is because when human equality and bodily nature of humans are taken seriously there is need of recognizing the rights of more dependent, younger and less dependent persons that we may in whatever way want to believe.

Conclusion

When human rights are seriously upheld, the rights of everyone are equal irrespective of disability or not. This is because no one chooses to be created the way they are hence discrimination of such extent leading to abortion should not in any way be tolerated (Ramage, Bean and Johnson, 2009). Moreover, fetuses should be protected and not left in the hands of their parent’s discretion that they may choose to terminate their life on the basis of levels of dependency. Thus, since disability is not inability all fetuses should be given a chance to live their life irrespective of their status.

Reference:

Ramage, J.D., Bean, J. C. and Johnson, J. (2009). Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric With Readings. 5^th ed. Toronto: Pearson Education Inc.