Can pregnant women be trusted to make moral choices?

[Marley23]

A few decades ago there was a probably spurious study that claimed IQ was inversely proportional to breast size.

I think this came up in one of my classes in the last few days. And yes, the conclusion is spurious (the study found no correlation).

[papergirl]

Yes, I think pregnant women can be trusted to make moral choices, at least as much as anyone else can be. The real question would be who gets to define the essence of “morality.”

Perhaps we could appoint a panel of Exceptionally Moral Men.

Forgive me, astro, for being of the opinion that you would be well-served to find a somewhat more diverse field of women to include in your pool of personal experience.

Best,
karol

[Zenster]

I’d say that women seem to have been making the “moral” choice for several hundred thousand years now. If not, none of us might be here today. I think we can safely continue to trust that women will make the right decision in the future.

[Marley23]

To echo Zenster’s point, we already trust pregnant women to make moral choices. Deciding whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is certainly a choice that involves a lot of moral considerations (though there are other factors). Heck, one could argue that taking care of yourself throughout a pregnancy- not smoking crack, etc.- is a moral choice. And raising kids definitely involves moral choices. I’m not sure why possible genetic engineering would change any of this.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

I know an awful lot of couples who don’t use current technology to find out things about their unborn babies. Many don’t want to know the sex, and I know some who have refused the triple-screen test. Just because knowledge and technology is available doesn’t mean everyone will take advantage of it.

When pregnant women are careful about their health and nutirtion in pregnancy, I don’t think it’s all about “I want to increase the chances that my baby will be perfect.” It’s more about “I want to do right by this child which depends on me.” It’s a fine distinction, but it could become a much bigger one if we’re trying to predict how mothers-to-be will use the technologies you’re describing.

[fessie]

I think Cranky is right on target. Plus the obsession with external standards of perfection isn’t really quite as universal as it sometimes seems; the people who are on that path make a lot of noise, but plenty of people aren’t listening or just don’t get it.

Frankly, I think most people want their kids to be like them, which translates to perpetuating variety, not eliminating it.

[cowgirl]

Another characteristic that may be “planned for” - I have heard concerns from little people (aka dwarfs) that soon their kind may disappear, as some genes that cause the condition can be detected in utero, causing selective abortions.

The LPA (Little People of America) website:

The gene for achondroplasia, the most common type of dwarfism, was discovered in 1994. Achondroplasia is caused by a gene mutation that is the same in 98% of the cases … LPA’s discussion of these possibilities brought forth a strong emotional reaction. Some members were excited about the developments that led to the understanding of the cause of their conditions, along with the possibility of not having to endure a pregnancy resulting in the infant’s death. Others reacted with fear that the knowledge from genetic tests such as these will be used to terminate affected pregnancies and therefore take the opportunity for life away from children such as ourselves and our children. The common thread throughout the discussions was that we as short statured individuals are productive members of society who must inform the world that, though we face challenges, most of them are environmental (as with people with other disabilities), and we value the opportunity to contribute a unique perspective to the diversity of our society.

(emphasis mine)

[scotandrsn]

*Originally posted by astro *
**Most (not all) pregnant mothers, so far as I have been to observe as a husband, friend, godfather and acquaintance to many of them, are maximally concerned and focused on the health and fitness of their children, and will go to extraordinary lengths in taking care of themsleves, adopting various physical regimens, and using existing medical technology to insure this health and fitness.
**

And you’ve observed how many? 10? 20? 50? And you’re going to extrapolate from that to the approximately 3 billion women currently alive today?

Doesn’t wash with me.

[Primaflora]

I’ve been thinking about this a bit lately too. If I could have chosen to ‘fix’ my kids in utero, would I have done so?

I think I would have. I also think it is a moral decision to spare my kids suffering. I don’t buy the theory that it is necessary for diversity that we preserve genes which lead to individual suffering.

It’s all very well to say that we need to preserve genes such as autism in the name of diversity but I’m not seeing autism as adding to the joy of my life or the lives of my kids. I’d not adjust their intelligence if I were told I were at risk of bearing a kid beyond the optimal high IQ range. That’s manageable even with concurrent ADD and autism. Bipolar? Yeah, I think I’d weed that out too.

But I cannot see that my decisions would be immoral whether I was pregnant or not pregnant. I didn’t get the choice to make those decisions but my kids will face them I suspect and I will totally support them to choose to lose or lessen the risks of autism and bipolar. ADD, not so much. Severely gifted kids? that’s going to be their call.