Explain The Implications Of Prenatal Diagnosis Of Human Right To Life

Implications of Prenatal Diagnosis for the Human Right to Life

There have been a number of public heated debates on the implication of prenatal diagnosis for the human right to life. A number of researchers and scholars have provided various reasons as to why a genetic factor should be taken into account while making decisions regarding abortion and other related aspects. Although in the recent past people made decisions majorly on grounds of poverty, prevailing war and inadequate resources, genetic factors seem to have overtaken traditional rationales in the modern world. Most medical practitioners claim that it is irresponsible for a pregnant woman to disregard abortion when the fetus is characterized by defects.
They accentuate that it is ethical to terminate the life of a defective fetus on three grounds: that a society is responsible for the good life of a child; there is no damage caused by preventing an infant from existing; and that the reproductive rights of parents do not prevail the child’s right to live a good life (Kass, 1973).
However, Kass seems to disagree with the researches and thoughts of various scholars as far as the prenatal diagnosis and its implication on the human right to life is concerned.
Kass states there are many chances of the genetically defective fetuses leading to a society where the genetically imperfect individuals are given minimal rights in relation to the genetically normal individuals. Kass states firmly that all human beings are equal and should equally access the fundamental human rights. One of the fundamental human rights that this scholar strongly advocates is the right to life. In the past twenty years, many societies were seen to embrace the rule of law where the human right to life was believed to be the cornerstone of moral
belief.

In an attempt to explore the issue of the implication of prenatal diagnosis on the human rights to life, the scholar engages in a discussion of a number of aspects. The first aspect regards the genetic abortion and the living defective. In this case, the scholar is concerned with the few fetuses that escape an abortion. The question is concerned with how the defective individuals that escaped the ruthless abortion would be perceived and treated by the society. The scholar supposes that the genetically abnormal would be regarded as unfit to live. The society would perceive them as a burden and would possibly accord them less-than-equal rights. The scholar also feels that the few who escapes genetic abortion would live a resentful life provided that these genetically imperfect individuals are sane. Another question that is posed by this scholar is whether the society which is for the abortion of genetically defective fetuses would treat the few genetically imperfect individuals like Jews in the Nazi Germany or not.

In an endeavor to comprehensively discuss the implication of prenatal diagnosis on the right to life, Kass extensively discusses about genetic and related defectives. The scholar strongly points out that the society tends to demonstrate that the individual or fetus is the disease as opposed to the fetus having the disease. Given the prevailing perception among diverse individuals, Kass asserts that the society is inclined to coming up with effortless methods of eliminating genetically imperfect individuals in an effort to eradicate undesirable personalities in a society. The scholar as well expresses fear of a society advancing the permissible period of abortion from fetuses to newborns and adults.

The scholar is seen to strongly disagree with the standards for justifying the genetic abortion. Kass remarkably defers with the widespread belief that the wellbeing of a society and the inadequate resources should be used to justify a genetic abortion. The philosopher believes that these two aspects, which can be equated, to cost should not be compared with a value of an individual’s life. Kass suggests that there are high chances of genetically defective child’s parents being compassionate about their imperfect child. Moreover, Kass states that there is danger of failing to draw a clear line to distinguish between a desirable and undesirable individual as far as genetically defective individuals are concerned. In relation to the undesirable personality, the scholar goes further to pose a question about a blind person. Although Kass is very passionate about the fundamental human right to life in the light of prenatal diagnosis, the scholar does not provide religious reasons to support his argument.