It's a touchy subject but the slippery slope arguments are akin to the same crap we heard about rampant polygamy and people marrying their cats from the anti-gay marriage crowd. HOZ sort of has a point with eugenics comment but this isn't really the same thing. Eugenics was based on a lot of misinformation and bad science, whereas we are now actually able to view these deficiencies shortly after conception. Mind you, the idea of completely ridding society of DS is rendered absurd by the fact that there will still be many parents who choose to keep their child regardless of any "deficiencies."
As for where I stand, I think it's still ultimately the woman's right to choose. If a woman does not believe that she has the means or capacity to care for a child with severe mental and/or physical disabilities, then who are we to decide for her? Another thing to note may be something like Cystic Fibrosis or any other number of diseases that are pretty much death sentences for the children diagnosed with them. I really don't have a problem with aborting the fetus, sparing the child from suffering through such an awful illness, and the parents from the prolonged grief and emotional turmoil.
|