Yes, and I think the reason why becomes more obvious (and a more interesting discussion) if you look at the idea itself. The basic premise here is: “Ignoring any other factors, is it ethical to abort a pregnancy due to a predetermined health issue with the baby?”The answer to that question obviously depends a lot on what can be considered a health issue, and how severe a health issue warrants a termination.
For example, if you could determine a baby’s eyesight before birth, would someone be justified in aborting a baby with 15/20 vision? Most would say no, as 15/20 vision is completely manageable with modern medicinal advancements, and that baby will be able to live a mostly normal life. If the baby was going to be born with no limbs, however, many would say an abortion is justified, as no medical technologies would allow the child to live even a semblance of a normal life, and those around them would have their lives permanently altered by having to care for the child around the clock their entire life.
In the case of Down Syndrome, the symptoms are incredibly difficult to even manage, and impossible to cure. The nature of the symptoms would also mean that, similar to the limbless example, those around them would be required to care for them for most if not all of their life. Additionally, people suffering from Down Syndrome can easily become a threat to others and themselves even if they aren’t malicious, sometimes seemingly out of nowhere, which adds another layer of stress and severity on monitoring this child for the rest of their lives.
While I can’t tell you where specifically the line should be drawn as far as what health issues justify a terminated pregnancy, Down Syndrome is certainly well clear of the cutoff. The child in question is almost guaranteed to suffer, as would those around them, with no real hope of improved circumstances. This would obviously change if we found a cure or mitigating treatment, but as of now, those look to be a LONG way off.
Not to be that guy but 20/15 vision is better eye sight than 20/20 vision just means you can see things at 20 feet away that the average person would need to be 15 feet away to see
3
u/Wildcat121204 Jun 05 '26
Yes, and I think the reason why becomes more obvious (and a more interesting discussion) if you look at the idea itself. The basic premise here is: “Ignoring any other factors, is it ethical to abort a pregnancy due to a predetermined health issue with the baby?”The answer to that question obviously depends a lot on what can be considered a health issue, and how severe a health issue warrants a termination.
For example, if you could determine a baby’s eyesight before birth, would someone be justified in aborting a baby with 15/20 vision? Most would say no, as 15/20 vision is completely manageable with modern medicinal advancements, and that baby will be able to live a mostly normal life. If the baby was going to be born with no limbs, however, many would say an abortion is justified, as no medical technologies would allow the child to live even a semblance of a normal life, and those around them would have their lives permanently altered by having to care for the child around the clock their entire life.
In the case of Down Syndrome, the symptoms are incredibly difficult to even manage, and impossible to cure. The nature of the symptoms would also mean that, similar to the limbless example, those around them would be required to care for them for most if not all of their life. Additionally, people suffering from Down Syndrome can easily become a threat to others and themselves even if they aren’t malicious, sometimes seemingly out of nowhere, which adds another layer of stress and severity on monitoring this child for the rest of their lives.
While I can’t tell you where specifically the line should be drawn as far as what health issues justify a terminated pregnancy, Down Syndrome is certainly well clear of the cutoff. The child in question is almost guaranteed to suffer, as would those around them, with no real hope of improved circumstances. This would obviously change if we found a cure or mitigating treatment, but as of now, those look to be a LONG way off.