Down-Syndrome and the Moral Mess
Tuesday, February 21, 2012 at 10:49AM | Dave Strunk Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.
Isaiah 5:20
Time Magazine has a feature article this week on the improving technology for detecting Down-Syndrome in the womb. The news isn't good.
Because of this improved technology, abortions are expected to rise, and the article already puts Down-Syndrome "pregnancy terminations" at about the 90% range. Somehow, this earlier-detection technology relieves a little more moral weight. If we can kill a child at week 7, then that's better than week 15 or 20. What a sad state of affairs. If viability makes someone a human, then I visit a lot of non-humans in hospitals these days. Woe to those who call evil good.
One doesn't have to be a hermit to understand other implications of detecting Down-Syndrome in the womb either. You have seen it in the media-as well, I have friends- that when Down-Syndrome is detected that people are considered moral monsters for having the child. "The child will suffer," they say. I've had friends who have Down-Syndrome; they aren't suffering. Our own sense of freedom might decrease, but that doesn't change the fundamental humanness of someone with Down-Syndrome. Woe to those who call good evil.
Perhaps a different moral example will clear matters up. In India and China, when gender is discovered in the womb, little girls inside their moms are routinely aborted. The quintessential question becomes, what is the fundamental difference between this and children with Down-Syndrome? What is fundamentally distinct? People could make the same argument for women in patriarchal cultures: "they will suffer." But nothing is fundamentally distinct. Reminds me of a Reagan quote something to the tune of "I can't help but notice that all those in favor of abortion have been born."
Sadly, though the Time article acknowledges the moral muddle of the technology (and we should add, it's benefits: it is helpful for parents keeping the child to walk through the emotions and plan before the child is born), the interviews conducted in the article leave the ambiguity on a morally clear situation. Even some of the parents in the article who did have the child honestly weighed "pros" and "cons" to having the child. Woe to those who call evil ambiguity.
Perhaps the moral root of this quandary will never leave us. We are selfish and we hate suffering, so if someone else will make us suffer let's end them before we have to lay eyes on them. But perhaps, just maybe, those who come after us will view this issue like American slavery is now viewed from 150 years of distance. We'll end an enormous moral problem.
Join me in this cause. It's the small issues, like Down-Syndrome early detection and resulting termination, where hearts and minds need to begin to be changed. If it can't be changed in our laws, let's begin to change it in the people around us lovingly and with respect.
Abortion, Down-Syndrome, Pro-Life, Time
Reader Comments (2)
Great post Dave! The whole issue, at least in my mind, revolves around quality of life, and who gets to determine it. It is a bit ironic that we wouldn't want anyone else to determine what quality of life is for us, yet we are increasingly ready to do it for an unborn baby. It is an inverse relationship, meaning that once we start to determine what quality of life is, it immediately becomes restricted.
Profound observation, Daryl. I can't believe that what should be readily believable is permissible. I shouldn't have to convince someone that killing babies is wrong. I shouldn't have to put forth a syllogism, but alas, I do. The best book, from a logical, philosophical, and scientific (as opposed to a religious argument) arguments on this are by Francis Beckwith in "Defending Life."