Abortion is legal in the United States by decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade since 1973, but that still does not make it moral or ethical. The Supreme Court determined abortion to be a “fundamental right” during the first trimester of pregnancy (Abortion). According to the Court, the states can only regulate abortion in the second and third trimesters and when it is related to maternal health. Also, the fetus life can be protected starting in the third trimester (McBride). The amount of arguments presented by both sides of the debate keeps increasing and therefore adding to the controversy. In the following pages, I will focus my discussion on selective abortion, specifically eugenic abortion which is based on genetic abnormalities
…show more content…
(Allott). Once NIPT becomes widely accepted and available, it is estimated tests performed will go from 100,000 to about 2.6 million per year only in the US. This type of abortion, based on genetic abnormalities is not less immoral or unethical than an abortion of any other type such as an unplanned pregnancy. There are several fundamental reasons why we cannot favor eugenic termination: a) It is discrimination, b) It is against our moral duty c) it is against the Hippocratic Oath, d) quality of life arguments, are not moral justifications.
In my first reason that disqualifies eugenic abortion, the unborn child is being discriminated because it is not considered as part of our moral community like it should be; even utilitarians like John Stuart Mills agree that the fetus is a moral being because it can experience pleasure and pain, yet proponents of eugenic abortion give no moral status to the fetus in order to justify termination (Satz 14) because of the potential for disability, they are therefore giving less moral worth to disabled individuals (Satz 15) but are not promoting termination of them which contradicts their …show more content…
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” (Veatch 3). The oath has been in effect since the 5th century B.C. Professionals in the medical field may be allowed to perform prenatal genetic tests and still be moral but once their results are shared and these results lead to an abortion, physicians performing so and informing of it are in violation of their very oath. This corrupts the medical practice and makes physicians morally and ethically wrong since their duty is to heal and restore health, not to end life. In addition, eugenic abortion “does not fall within the usual rigors of good medical practice, ordinarily physicians demand more clinical validation than laboratory and ultrasound tests before they perform procedures of grave importance to life (Malcolm 184)”. Proponents have “updated” the Oath to justify their immoral acts. For instance, the 21st Century version presented at the University of Arizona states: "I shall always have the highest respect for human life and remember that it is wrong to terminate life in certain circumstances, permissible in some and an act of charity in others" (Stanton). Kant would have a hard time validating this statement because, a) it is a violation of the
(Allott). Once NIPT becomes widely accepted and available, it is estimated tests performed will go from 100,000 to about 2.6 million per year only in the US. This type of abortion, based on genetic abnormalities is not less immoral or unethical than an abortion of any other type such as an unplanned pregnancy. There are several fundamental reasons why we cannot favor eugenic termination: a) It is discrimination, b) It is against our moral duty c) it is against the Hippocratic Oath, d) quality of life arguments, are not moral justifications.
In my first reason that disqualifies eugenic abortion, the unborn child is being discriminated because it is not considered as part of our moral community like it should be; even utilitarians like John Stuart Mills agree that the fetus is a moral being because it can experience pleasure and pain, yet proponents of eugenic abortion give no moral status to the fetus in order to justify termination (Satz 14) because of the potential for disability, they are therefore giving less moral worth to disabled individuals (Satz 15) but are not promoting termination of them which contradicts their …show more content…
I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.” (Veatch 3). The oath has been in effect since the 5th century B.C. Professionals in the medical field may be allowed to perform prenatal genetic tests and still be moral but once their results are shared and these results lead to an abortion, physicians performing so and informing of it are in violation of their very oath. This corrupts the medical practice and makes physicians morally and ethically wrong since their duty is to heal and restore health, not to end life. In addition, eugenic abortion “does not fall within the usual rigors of good medical practice, ordinarily physicians demand more clinical validation than laboratory and ultrasound tests before they perform procedures of grave importance to life (Malcolm 184)”. Proponents have “updated” the Oath to justify their immoral acts. For instance, the 21st Century version presented at the University of Arizona states: "I shall always have the highest respect for human life and remember that it is wrong to terminate life in certain circumstances, permissible in some and an act of charity in others" (Stanton). Kant would have a hard time validating this statement because, a) it is a violation of the