Bioethics Discussion Post

I would like to begin this response by stating that I respect every differing opinion/position held by my fellow classmates, but I will be responding to this discussion while holding a very firm pro-life position. From a pro-life perspective, the morality of having children, as well as issues related to prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion, MUST be viewed through the lens of the value of every single human life. Life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, every human life, regardless of circumstances, is deserving of protection and a fighting chance. With that foundation, I will address the questions posed.

Can it be immoral to have children under certain circumstances?
          Every day, just by exiting one’s home and entering a room with other people, one risks contracting lice. Albeit a rare occurrence, the possibility remains ever present. This is similar to engaging in an act of protected intercourse that results in pregnancy. Though few and far between, pregnancy as a result of protected sex will always be a risk that must be considered before engaging in the act of intercourse. With this risk understood, one must beg the question: if two people are unable or unwilling to support/care for/deal with a baby, should they be engaging in sexual intercourse?
          To address the question previously posed in this discussion, it would be immoral for two people (like the ones I have just mentioned) to have a child if they are unable or unwilling to deal with the possible consequences. For example, two teenagers who are unable to support themselves, let alone a child, should not be risking a pregnancy by engaging in intercourse. Two 40-year-olds who are uninterested in conceiving a child and/or unwilling to provide care for one should not be risking pregnancy by engaging in intercourse. Abortion is not a reset button. It is not a time machine. Consequences, good and bad, are inevitable. Stealing could lead to jail time. Working hard on a school assignment can lead to a good grade. Engaging in intercourse at any point in life and despite any use of protection could lead to pregnancy.  I sustain that there does not exist a moment in time in which abortion is a moral or just action to take following a discovery of pregnancy. However, if two people in a situation similar to the one I have mentioned become pregnant, the most morally sound approach would be to place the child up for adoption so that someone who is willing and capable can love and support the innocent life who is not at fault for their parents’ lack of responsibility. The solution is never to prevent life from being created or to harm life that has been created, but rather to improve the conditions in which they will be raised.

The morality of prenatal diagnosis and selective abortion
          There is nothing immoral about prenatal diagnosis. Medical testing to understand the health of an unborn child can be used to prepare parents for potential challenges and ensure that the baby receives appropriate care after birth. However, using such tests and knowledge gained from diagnoses to decide whether to abort a child is totally and utterly immoral. If one is uninterested in bearing a child with a genetic abnormality, the moral course of action would be to carry the baby to term and allow someone who is willing and capable to care for and support the child in the way he/she needs. Every human being, regardless of health or ability, has inherent value and it is inhumane to suggest otherwise. The act of ending a life because it does not meet certain standards of “normalcy” or “desirability” amounts to discrimination and undermines the innate worth and value of all human lives. In the case of genetic abnormalities, children with conditions such as Down syndrome or other disabilities are still fully human and capable of living full, purposeful lives. To terminate a pregnancy because of such a diagnosis sends the message that certain lives are not worth living.

Is it permissible to abort an embryo of a fetus based on biological sex?
          There was a quote spoken by Tooley that claims, “An organism has a right to life only if it possesses the concept of self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity.” I am sure it comes as no surprise that I very strongly disagree with this statement, as part of every single human life includes the period of time in which the child does not know that it exists (which outlasts their time spent in the womb). The sense of self has not yet developed, and, rather than this period of time being accepted as normal human life progression, it is seen as a damning case against the new life’s right to live.
          Just as it would be entirely unjust to end a new life based on its inability to understand its own existence from the moment of conception, ending its life because of something as uncontrollable and unpredictable as its gender is not only discriminatory and biased, but also thoroughly unfair to the baby who had absolutely no control over the matter. Every child, male or female, is a human being deserving of a chance at life. In the womb, though totally alive and totally human, they are defenseless and incapable of fighting for their basic right to live. Selective abortions based on gender and/or disability devalues individuals based on characteristics they have no control over. In today’s society, one would not look at a grown woman and undermine her simply because she is a woman. Similarly, one would not devalue a disabled person simply because they are disabled. Why is it different for a baby in the womb? Where did their human value disappear to? What suddenly justifies their murder?