The Link Between Genetic Screening and Abortion Pregnancy screenings are essential to providing adequate care for pregnant mothers and fetuses. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) (2014b), several screenings are now recommended as routine prenatal care for all pregnant women. Health care providers may use the information obtained from screenings to identify and manage any complications that may arise during pregnancy or birth. One such routine screening is a urinalysis, which provides information on possible preeclampsia. Preeclampsia can lead to preterm birth, low birth weight, and even placental abruption, which can be life threatening for both the mother and fetus (Mayo Clinic, 2014). For this reason,
…show more content…
One of the key topics of debate aims attention at the parent’s responsibility to their unborn child. Proponents view that parents who perform genetic screenings are acting responsibly. According to this argument, severe genetic disabilities are a hindrance to a child’s future because the child must live with the disability and may experience unfair disadvantages (Malek & Daar, 2012). Thus, it is a parent’s duty to ensure that their child lives out the fullest and most meaningful life that they can provide. Genetic screenings allow parents to make the decision on preventing the birth of a disabled child through abortion. Opponents, however, view this argument as a misrepresentation of a parent’s duty to a child. “Good” parenting is not based on altering a child’s future. Rather, it is focused on loving the child, regardless of disability. Reducing the likelihood of having a child with disabilities reflects an “inappropriate attitude towards parenthood” (Malek, 2013, p. 59). Thus, using genetic screening to manipulate a child’s future depicts conditional love, which does not represent a parent’s …show more content…
This contributes to an increased confusion on abortion practices related to positive genetic test results. Abortion is currently legal in the United States, although each state has the ability to restrict abortion laws in varying degrees (Guttmacher Institute, 2014). Current public funding of abortion varies by state. As of November 2014, 17 states publicly fund “medically necessary abortions” (Guttmacher Institute, 2014, p. 2). The term “medically necessary” brings to attention that most abortion laws focus on how the pregnancy affects the woman’s health, rather than the condition of the fetus. There are limited policies that determine the restrictions and funding of abortions related to genetic screening. Because of such ambiguous laws governing abortion, this leaves room for misunderstanding and misconstruction of current abortion
One of the key topics of debate aims attention at the parent’s responsibility to their unborn child. Proponents view that parents who perform genetic screenings are acting responsibly. According to this argument, severe genetic disabilities are a hindrance to a child’s future because the child must live with the disability and may experience unfair disadvantages (Malek & Daar, 2012). Thus, it is a parent’s duty to ensure that their child lives out the fullest and most meaningful life that they can provide. Genetic screenings allow parents to make the decision on preventing the birth of a disabled child through abortion. Opponents, however, view this argument as a misrepresentation of a parent’s duty to a child. “Good” parenting is not based on altering a child’s future. Rather, it is focused on loving the child, regardless of disability. Reducing the likelihood of having a child with disabilities reflects an “inappropriate attitude towards parenthood” (Malek, 2013, p. 59). Thus, using genetic screening to manipulate a child’s future depicts conditional love, which does not represent a parent’s …show more content…
This contributes to an increased confusion on abortion practices related to positive genetic test results. Abortion is currently legal in the United States, although each state has the ability to restrict abortion laws in varying degrees (Guttmacher Institute, 2014). Current public funding of abortion varies by state. As of November 2014, 17 states publicly fund “medically necessary abortions” (Guttmacher Institute, 2014, p. 2). The term “medically necessary” brings to attention that most abortion laws focus on how the pregnancy affects the woman’s health, rather than the condition of the fetus. There are limited policies that determine the restrictions and funding of abortions related to genetic screening. Because of such ambiguous laws governing abortion, this leaves room for misunderstanding and misconstruction of current abortion