Case Study Of Lindemann's Down Syndrome

Modern technology has provided families the free choice and ability to abort a fetus that they feel is not the the proper one for their lifestyle. These opportunities are present so that the offspring they create is one born with equal opportunity, and one that will be loved and taken care of fully; as is the ethical obligation of a parent. It is ultimately up to a parent whether or not they will bring a child into the world provided that they stay within the law when doing so, but this response will address the ethical criteria under which parents choose to do so. Dawkins feels that if a fetus with something such as Down Syndrome (DS) is brought into the world, not only would it not be loved properly, but it would not be given a life on equal

Carla was born with Hydrocephaly, where her spinal fluids build up on her brain and the created pressure severely disrupts cerebral function. She was still able to live a long life, provided that she was taken care of properly, yet she would likely have to be institutionalized after infancy because of a lack of resources to properly care for her (Lindemann, 3); a life that sounds less than appealing to the regular human being. In Carla’s case, she was likely viewed not as an equal person, but as a very sickly child. Therefore, she was not acknowledged on an equal scale as the rest of the family, hence not fully a moral agent (Lindemann, 10-11). Eventually her sickness got the best of her and she died. In class, we learn of Immanuel Kant and John Rawls belief that if you cannot reflect rationally, and are not self-aware pf surroundings, then you are not a person. For young Carla then, life is not worth living because she likely sees everything through an utter body experience, and is basically just a body with no rational

Thompson points out the flaws in the idea that the fetus’ right to life far outweighs the mother’s right to abort it if she feels she does not want to bring it in to the world. She uses of the violinist anecdote to describes the situation. If a violinist needs to be hooked up to another’s vital organs for a time to survive, does the person have to do it? The answer is no. So then, if a Down Syndrome fetus is in a woman that cannot properly care for the child, and knows it will not be treated equally, does she have to bring it into the world? That answer too, is no (Thomson, 45). Important points relevant to Dawkin’s claims are: extreme views of abortion are false and life cannot be so simply decided on who has higher right of life. A fetus is essentially under jurisdiction of a mother. If it is her decision or abort a sickly fetus, no one has the right to deprive her of it. 2) it speaks of some loopholes in the extremist view of abortion to circumvent the ethical conflicts (Thomson 46). This implies that the mothers body is on loan, and as soon as the baby is conceived, she does not have 100% say over what happens to her body. In fact, she would have to care for the child, and indefinitely, and must take such a thing into