OBGYN here. Trisomy 18 is not a threat to the mother’s life and health. It’s a threat to the baby. Therefore, what’s at issue here is a value judgement about whether a disabled child should live until natural death or should have their life ended prematurely either through previable delivery or through a D and E. Aborting a child like th…
OBGYN here. Trisomy 18 is not a threat to the mother’s life and health. It’s a threat to the baby. Therefore, what’s at issue here is a value judgement about whether a disabled child should live until natural death or should have their life ended prematurely either through previable delivery or through a D and E. Aborting a child like this is in effect a direct attack on the innocent child. Arguing on the termination side enters into a eugenics position about the whether or not a disabled person should live. Morally it’s just not defensible. And we can’t ignore the moral evil that is wrought by abortion. It’s far worse than the physical evil of suffering of the mother and child, as awful as that admittedly is.
OBGYN here. Trisomy 18 is not a threat to the mother’s life and health. It’s a threat to the baby. Therefore, what’s at issue here is a value judgement about whether a disabled child should live until natural death or should have their life ended prematurely either through previable delivery or through a D and E. Aborting a child like this is in effect a direct attack on the innocent child. Arguing on the termination side enters into a eugenics position about the whether or not a disabled person should live. Morally it’s just not defensible. And we can’t ignore the moral evil that is wrought by abortion. It’s far worse than the physical evil of suffering of the mother and child, as awful as that admittedly is.