Monday, June 19, 2006

DNA tests.

As I was brought up within the mental confines of Catholic inertia, I have always struggled to fashion a solid opinion on the issue of abortion. Although religious overtones may have been purged from my logic long ago (or perhaps they haven't), I can never forget reading a midwife's account of the true nature of abortion. Explaining her conversion from pro-choice to pro-life, she recalled a baby that continued to gasp for breath minutes after being "aborted". In reality I didn't need to hear this horror story to believe that not long after conception a baby with a right to live exists whether we like it or not. Add to it all the fact I myself was adopted and am eternally indebted to the lady I will never meet, who went through the physical and emotional hurricane of child birth in order to gift me life, and my liberal instincts find themselves out-boxed by heavyweight morality.

However, this brand of moral righteousness must sometimes be met by another type of moral thinking. To argue against abortion where a young couple have been careless and would rather deny their child life then let them have it with another family is one thing, to knowingly bring a child into a short, painful, restrictive, and emotionally traumatic life due to serious illness is something quite different altogether. Still, even in this situation, abortion remains quite correctly a hotly contested issue.

That scientists claim to have found a way to detect any potentially serious diseases in embryos, and then work towards preventing these diseases, not simply aborting the child, should surely be seen as a miraculous breakthrough to be applauded and celebrated. Critics deplore the idea of helping these unborn babies, disgusted at the concept of "designer" births.

Obviously, it would be ethically repugnant if we were able to craft our babies according to our whims and fancies. Generations of British girls would grow up to look like clones of Christina Aguilera or Beyonce (now I come to think about it...)

But seriously, the argument is fundamentally flawed. In fact, it seems no more rational than arguing against the existence of a police force to protect society, lest they abuse their powers. Millions of children could live happy and fulfilling lives, looking forward and planning for the future, just like their friends. To deprive them of that in case we are not able to resist turning humanity into one giant Vogue photoshoot is what is truely morally repulsive.

5 Comments:

At 3:28 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks Phu. You've given me something to think about.

 
At 6:56 pm, Blogger Gert said...

A few points:

* only very "late term" embryos actually breathe. Embryos start as single cell, which divide and start to differentiate. Organs form quite late in embryonical development. This makes rather a case against "late term" abortions, rather than against abortion in general.

* interference with embryos is not a recent thing and pre-dates the pro-life, pro-choice debate by a long time.

* in life we're all the winners in an extraordinary "lottery": the fact that I'm "me" is really against all odds; a different maternal egg and paternal spermcell would have made a quite different "me". Also the "bloodline" you come from and the one I come from are two of the rare, surviving ones: most branches in the Human Tree of Life didn't make it to this day.

 
At 10:29 am, Blogger Phu said...

you're right, it does only really apply to late term abortions.

 
At 6:04 pm, Blogger Dangerouslysubversivedad said...

Phu, you are starting to say things that actually make a great deal of sense. I think I need to go and have a lie down...

 
At 11:13 am, Blogger Phu said...

I'm not sure who's more worried!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home