A pregnant woman decides to have her fetus screened for Down Syndrome. She’s already decided that if the result is positive, she’ll terminate the pregnancy.
Q1: In your opinion, is the woman’s decision (to terminate the pregnancy in the event of a positive test result) moral?
The result is negative and she goes on to give birth. However, immediately after birth it becomes clear that the baby suffers from Down Syndrome after all. The test gave a false negative.
Q2: Legal issues aside, would a decision at this point to “put the baby to sleep” be moral in your opinion?
A pregnant woman decides to have her fetus screened for Down Syndrome. She’s already decided that if the result is positive, she’ll terminate the pregnancy.
Q1: In your opinion, is the woman’s decision (to terminate the pregnancy in the event of a positive test result) moral?
The result is negative and she goes on to give birth. However, immediately after birth it becomes clear that the baby suffers from Down Syndrome after all. The test gave a false negative.
Q2: Legal issues aside, would a decision at this point to “put the baby to sleep” be moral in your opinion?
The ambivalence in A2 comes from my lack of knowledge about the moment when people become aware of their existence.
I.e. you can’t be negatively affected by someone taking away something that you weren’t aware of.
I know this is not at the core of this post but how realistic is it that a fetus is falsely diagnosed with not having Down Syndrome ?
One of my favorite movies is Gattaca ( go rent it if you haven’t yet, it is great ) and I am all for improving the gene pool and the overall quality of human life and I don’t think we ought to be that squeamish about it either.
If it weren’t for that damned Austrian we probably would have given this more thought already.
The ambivalence in A2 comes from my lack of knowledge about the moment when people become aware of their existence.
I.e. you can’t be negatively affected by someone taking away something that you weren’t aware of.
You can negatively affect someone by killing them.
The ambivalence in A2 comes from my lack of knowledge about the moment when people become aware of their existence.
I.e. you can’t be negatively affected by someone taking away something that you weren’t aware of.
All right, but even if they are self aware, they won’t be after they’re dead. The dead aren’t negatively affected by anything. So why should that make a difference?
Once the baby develops a spinal cord and can feel pain, it’s clearly murder.
Assume it’s a painless death. Would that make a difference?
The ambivalence in A2 comes from my lack of knowledge about the moment when people become aware of their existence.
I.e. you can’t be negatively affected by someone taking away something that you weren’t aware of.
All right, but even if they are self aware, they won’t be after they’re dead. The dead aren’t negatively affected by anything. So why should that make a difference?
You can always push questions about morality to a slippery slope. In your example I am trying to take a moral position based on suffering and therefore on the ability to have experiences/awareness.
It seems a good place to start a conversation about this.
Your comment about the dead I take not to be serious.
A1 - No - I see no evidence that the woman engaged in any sort of moral analysis whatsoever, so how could her decision be “moral.” Also no, for the reason waltercat gave. Downs kids (as well as those with other defects) can live meaningful lives, and should be given the same chance to experience life as the rest of us.
A1 - No - I see no evidence that the woman engaged in any sort of moral analysis whatsoever, so how could her decision be “moral.” Also no, for the reason waltercat gave. Downs kids (as well as those with other defects) can live meaningful lives, and should be given the same chance to experience life as the rest of us.
A2 - No - See answer to A1.
Yes, Bruce, that was my assessment as well. The description of the scenario was too thin. If the only reason the woman has for aborting the child is that the child has Down’s syndrome, then that is not a good justification for the abortion.
Yes, Bruce, that was my assessment as well. The description of the scenario was too thin. If the only reason the woman has for aborting the child is that the child has Down’s syndrome, then that is not a good justification for the abortion.
What’s your stand on abortion in general? Is it ever justified?
A pregnant woman decides to have her fetus screened for Down Syndrome. She’s already decided that if the result is positive, she’ll terminate the pregnancy.
Q1: In your opinion, is the woman’s decision (to terminate the pregnancy in the event of a positive test result) moral?
The result is negative and she goes on to give birth. However, immediately after birth it becomes clear that the baby suffers from Down Syndrome after all. The test gave a false negative.
Q2: Legal issues aside, would a decision at this point to “put the baby to sleep” be moral in your opinion?
IF youre asking whether the decision is moral, than no it is not moral. It is based on selfishness, pride, and fear. Moral virtues are generally understood as being courageous, fair, and self-sacrifice. None of these moral virtues are identified in the woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy. Rather her decision is nazi-like, seeking to cleanse the society of “undesirable elements”.
Yes, Bruce, that was my assessment as well. The description of the scenario was too thin. If the only reason the woman has for aborting the child is that the child has Down’s syndrome, then that is not a good justification for the abortion.
What’s your stand on abortion in general? Is it ever justified?
I think that, in some cases, there are good reasons to have an abortion. But my view is still evolving.
Here are some thoughts:
I think that sentience (by which I mean the capacity to have experiences, e.g., of pain or pleasure) is a morally significant feature; once a being is sentient, then it deserves moral consideration. So, once a fetus becomes sentient, it becomes much more difficult to justify aborting it. Before sentience, I think abortions are easier to justify. The problem, however, is that it is not clear when a fetus becomes sentient.
