With reference to the recent Zika virus, do you think it is ethical for infected pregnant mothers to abort their unborn fetus? Zika virus is said to cause microcephaly (small heads, abnormal brain growth) in babies.
I came across this question in my ethics class today. The prof subtly suggested that it was ethical to abort the baby because the child might grow up and say, 'I don't want to be born into this world'. The mother is depriving the right of the child to live normally, or something like that.
I felt really uncomfortable with that, partly because the mother did not give the child a right to live (in the first place). From a utilitarian perspective, abortion could possibly benefit the child and the family. The child does not have to physically or emotionally suffer from the disease, while the family is rid of the financial burden that they may incur. Win-win.
Abortion shouldn't be the only answer to this problem. I challenged his notion and suggested that if this abortion was correct, then mothers should not bring more children into the world if she cannot afford it. Assuming a scarcity of resources, a poor family would not be able to raise a child as well as a rich family. The child would be deprived of the right to development and possibly attention. Based on that argument, wouldn't it be wrong to give birth to a child where there is a high chance the economic status of the family will bring more harm than good? I could possibly tell my parents, "hey mum and dad, I don't want to be born into this world. I kinda suffered because we couldn't afford better living conditions. It was unethical for you to bring me into this world."
But my idea was shot. Prof said that there is a distinct difference between physical disability and social status, in my example. However, when I talk about being born into a poor family, I don't just mean social status. I mean the deprivation of so many opportunities that would otherwise be possible if a family has one less child. Or none at all.
Let me take it a step further. Consider a family of 6. Average income, enough to feed the 6 of them but not more. Mother gets pregnant, have the kid, but expenses would have to be split among the other siblings. Attention too. Next, consider a family of 3. Average income, enough to have 2-3 children. Mother gets pregnant, but the child was tested to have no legs. Have the kid, and although it may be tough for his caretakers, they manage financially and mentally.
Based on these 2 examples, I say it would be more ethical to abort the 'normal' child, just because of his family's ability to provide that level of care. The disabled child may face more challenges in terms of adapting to the society, but that doesn't negate the fact that the impoverished child won't as well.
So in my opinion, I just think it's unethical to justify the example my prof gave, which is to decide outright that a child born with physical defects is worse off than an impoverished child, demanding such a drastic measure as abortion.
I just had to rant this out, because I felt I was being misunderstood in class. Oh well, ethics is a never-ending debate that renders no conclusion.
P.S. My classmates were saying that it's really easy to spot Christians in an ethics class. Those who turned their heads at the mention of abortion, drugs, pre-marital sex or what not, are definitely one of us.
