An early test for Down’s syndrome is developed. With this future mothers will know even earlier if their child-to-be-born has this disease. [1]
Such tests really terrify me. Because they are not performed with the intention to preserve or sustain life, but with the intention to terminate it…
The point under discussion is this: Should science (as “Science”) be interested in the moral implications of what it does? For years scientists claim that it shouldn’t. However the evil related to scientific discoveries is much too overwhelming to ignore. Science SHOULD take a stand!
When I develop a test that I KNOW will be used to justify the killing of someone and yet, I cannot say that I am “not” responsible for the results… Bioethics as a sector should develop IN PARALLEL with the advances of science in various fields, ESPECIALLY when human life is at stake.
The need to “know” is urged by a need to kill anything unperfect.
Our civilization is a civilization of (spitirual) death.
We WILL create the perfect body, like Hitler visualized. But when we do, we will have killed its soul…
This post hit home because, when I was carrying my daughter I was faced with this very issue. I had a screening that indicated that my child probably had Down syndrome, but the only way to know for sure was amino. I was pushed many times by the specialist to have the test and that I only had so much time. “So much time” for what; to decide if I wanted to terminate the pregnancy. I had NO intention of terminating my pregnancy and I honestly believe this is why we have tests like this is to get rid of what we ‘deem’ as not perfect.
I agree with you too!
Take care,
Evelyn
Thanks! You too!
Reblogged this on Oxtapus *beta.