I heard an interview on the radio with a female author, talking about her latest book and some other things. One of those other things included an abortion she had had. The circumstances hit home a little bit for me, as she had decided to have the abortion after an amniocentesis had shown that there was a genetic indication that the baby had a chance of being born with mental retardation. She didn't say why, but this information caused her to decide to terminate the child.
My general feeling is that it is best to avoid killing whenever possible. I also feel that there are times when killing is quite permissible, as in the termination of violent criminals (SEE NOTE 1) or certain military actions.
As for abortion in general, I see no ethical concern with aborting a little clump of cells, but I do think that once the fetus has a brain and a beating heart, you are essentially dealing with a living being, an individual.
I don't believe in the idea of a soul, so that is not a concern for me. I find the soul hypothesis to be flawed to the point on nonviability. As I have blogged before, I have come to believe that life is sort of like a flame. Although each flame is unique, dances around as if it has a life force, and can even seem like it is acting with a purpose (hence the occasional anthropomorphic fire god or fairy in human folklore), we know that flames are not alive, as such, nor do we think that each one possesses a soul of any sort. I believe that life -- and, by extension, perhaps consciousness -- is the result of a similar, but much more complex, thermodynamic condition. That does not in any way imply that life is not important or worth protecting. But it does imply that a clump of cells is not a sentient being, even if it possesses that biochemical potential.
Once that clump of cells has a brain and beating heart, I think the game changes a bit. Although the human brain is not fully formed until an individual is in their 20s (I believe the white matter is the last thing to fully form), a fetus does have a functioning brain of sorts and can start to exhibit sentient behavior.
Now that you have a general idea of my thoughts and feelings on that, let's go back to the case that prompted this: An amniocentesis is generally done about 15-18 weeks into a pregnancy (SEE NOTE 2), early in the second trimester. One of the things it can detect is a genetic probability of Down's Syndrome. By this point, the baby has a face, hair (lanugo), and tooth buds, the major organs are formed and the baby is moving, making sucking motions with its mouth and may already be able to hear. It is quite recognizable as a human.
In this case, given some level or probablility that the baby may have been born with Down's Syndrome (which generally includes mental retardation and "has a certain morphological consequence") the mother decided to kill the child. It is not my place to judge or to in any way get involved in someone else's family decisions, but I can say that it made me very uncomfortable.
As most of you who read my blatherings know, I have a sister with mental retardation. She is 22 years older than me, and has been under the exclusive care of Diane and me for the last nine years. If my mother had had the option to not give birth to her in 1942, I can't say what her decision would have been, but I do know that I wouldn't have Judy in my life. Judy, being as high functioning as she is, has suffered greatly because of her physical disability (SEE NOTE 3). She realizes that she is not "normal," and cannot have the things that most people do, like freedom, a family, a career, etc. I have watched her suffer and struggle with this my entire life. But I do not think that, given the choice, she would prefer to be dead. Nor would I prefer not to have her for a sister. My life, and my worldview, would certainly be much different without ever having known Judy. Different, but not better. Just different.
Although I do not have the data on hand to verify this, my experience has been that most children with Down Syndrome have a greater level of mental retardation; that is, a lower level of conscious awareness, than Judy. Many -- probably most -- of them live happier lives than my sister can.
So I really wonder, in a case like this, what the motivation was for preventing this individual from having a chance to have a life. Again, I can't judge, but I think I can say that it was not an informed decision intended to prevent the child from suffering.
I have been disturbed since I heard this on the radio around noon today. It is not really something that I have thought about before, so it will take me a while to mentally digest the subject.
One of the things that I hope to accomplish in my life is a book about my sister and the lessons I have learned from having her in my life. I will wait until she passes, though, so her privacy is maintained and she doesn't become some sort of media novelty (SEE NOTE 4). That book might help others to understand and respect those with mental retardation, and perhaps even do something to help with the way they are treated in society. If my mother had decided not to give birth to Judy, I would never have had that chance.
XXX
NOTE 1: Although I would be willing to pull the trigger myself to eliminate violent criminals, especially those who prey on the helpless, I do have some concerns about capital punishment. I will write about that another time.
NOTE 2: Here's an image of a 16-week-old fetus: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/imagepages/9573.htm
NOTE 3: Although it may sound odd, mental retardation is a physical disability. It is a result of abnormal physical development -- in this case, of the brain -- resulting in an inability to live a "normal" life.
NOTE 4: The only problem with that plan is that, although she is one-and-a-half times my age, she is probably healthier than I am and could very well outlive me. Maybe I should start the manuscript and leave instructions in my will for it to be completed and published at some point.
No comments:
Post a Comment