Introduction
The killing of unborn babies because of genetic disability can never be justified. People who procure abortion because their unborn children have body defects should elucidate the motive behind going for genetic screening. The negative outcome of genetic screening also indicate that either of the parents had a recessive gene for disability. In that case, a parent should think deeply before making a decision to murder an unborn child.
This paper avoids discussions about the legality or illegality of abortion. The author is opposed to abortion on the grounds of genetic disability because parents sometimes make illegitimate decisions. The proponents and opponents of abortion have strong discussion points.
The compelling views in support of the termination of developing foetus on the grounds of genetic disability are unimportant and the author takes a stance that the action is unjustifiable because people with disability enjoy human rights and that disability does not connote inability.
Background
Presently, technological sophistication makes it promising to discover abnormalities in unborn children. Expectant mothers undertake routine prenatal screening and testing. The widespread screening procedures can discover disabilities associated with genes on unborn babies (Johnstone 89). The mothers of such children normally have the option of delivering their disabled babies and caring for them for the rest of their lives or murdering them. However, expectant women sometimes use screening results to justify abortion.
Genetic disability is not justification for abortion
Sadly, some 54,559, 615 Americans have not lived to pursue their life opportunities since 1973 through to 2011 because their lives were terminated through abortion (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). This is an indication that abortion should not continue based on insubstantial grounds. Aborting unborn children because of genetic disability is similar to approving eugenics.
The reasons why terminating a foetus is unjustifiable supersedes any other compelling debate. A foetus is a life and terminating its development amounts to manslaughter (Shafer-Landau 442). The psychological and physical results of abortion are simply unbearable. Women suffer traumatic nightmares when the bloody babies they aborted cry and call them as they sleep. Women feel worthless and depressed for negating motherly responsibilities (Orshan 28).
Proponents Argument
Abortion advocates suggest that unborn children are not alive until their delivery and aborting them is not murderous. For them, procuring abortion has nothing to do with discrimination of the disabled child. However, mothers have rights to negate nurturing disabled children (Johnstone 89).
Furthermore, the right of the mother supersedes that of the unborn child. Andrew Imparato, president of the American Association of People with Disabilities is concerned with the thoughts about rights enjoyed by women (Harmon). He observes, “If the response is simply, ‘You all are just anti-women’s-right-to-choose,’ I think that misses some of the important disabilities rights issues that are being raised” (Harmon).
Refutations
Proponents offer farfetched ideas about abortion. Their reasoning that unborn children do not have life is shocking. Unborn babies begin to have life a few months after their formation. They breathe and undertake other physiological activities (Shafer-Landau 446). Proponents must understand that disability is the same notwithstanding whether it is from birth or acquired in the course of life.
Conclusion
The act of terminating life because of disability is one of the most unethical decisions people can make. We must stand up to curtail the violation of the rights of unborn children because the privileges of disabled people are also human rights. We must inform such women that this world has opportunities for everyone and that adoption services exist to help them nurture the babies rather than murder them callously.
Works Cited
Harmon, Amy. “Beyond Row: New technology may complicate the debates over abortion.” The New York Times, 13 May 2007. Web.
Johnstone, David. An Introduction to Disability Studies. New York, NY: Routledge, 2012. Print.
Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. United States Abortion Statistics. 2012. Web.
Orshan, Susan. Maternity, Newborn, and Women’s Health Nursing: Comprehensive Care Across the Lifespan. Pennsylvania, PA: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008. Print.
Shafer-Landau, Russ. Ethical Theory: An Anthology. Massachusetts, MA: Blackwell, 2007. Print.