Arguments Against Prenatal Genetic Testing

The practice of prenatal genetic testing, although becoming commonplace, has been put at the center of the abortion debate in the United States. Doctors should only perform prenatal genetic testing in rare cases and very sparingly in order to protect the lives of the unborn whose genome sequence may deviate from what is considered genetically ¨normal¨. Although ¨testing and abortion are not synonymous¨ (Rebouché and Rothenberg 993) these two have begun to form a clear connection in a world where abortion is now acceptable. While prenatal genetic testing makes improvements every year, there still is a risk of harming the unborn, yet living child. Not only can testing bring harm to the child, it may also lead to the parent´s terminating a

Whole genome sequences show every gene and chromosome contained within the fetus. This will allow parents to see everything that makes up the DNA of the child and even with the possibility of ¨what will happen during the teenage and adult years¨ (Shurkin 1). Every parent has the idea of their dream child, what happens when whole genome sequencing shows that their future baby is not what they expect? As one article written by Joel Shurkin suggests that prenatal genetic test results might lead to parents raising their child differently, genetic manipulation, or even abortion if they are not pleased with the results. These options are rather common, with the rate of abortion ¨around 85% for Down Syndrome¨ (Press 74). Abortion has long been an issue that has been debated surrounding medical ethics. With genetic testing leading to many parents choosing to terminate the pregnancy in the case of a ¨probable risk that a fetus carries a genetic disorder¨ (Rebouché and Rothenberg 988) it lends itself to believe that there is a direct connection between genetic testing and abortion. This is why genetic testing must be done only in necessary cases, to be able to protect the lives of unborn children that have

Regardless of the improvements that have been made there is still a risk of miscarriages as a result.This risk factors can be contributed to the invasiveness of the procedure as well as the time during the pregnancy at which it is performed. The later the genetic testing is performed, the more developed the unborn child is and the later the possible abortion would take place. The two most common forms of testing are ¨amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling¨ (Rebouché and Rothenberg 989). Both of these tests ¨[require] extracting cells from the fetus in utero, either through the mother 's abdomen or vagina¨ (Rebouché and Rothenberg 989). Both of these tests are performed during the second trimester of a pregnancy, which begins at thirteen weeks, and the results of the tests return back information rather quickly at a time of one to two weeks. These tests are uncomfortable, quite costly, and ¨carry a one percent risk of miscarriage each¨ (Rebouché and Rothenberg 989). While the risk is small, the percentage of parents that chose to terminate the pregnancy after these invasive tests are much greater. Between the percentage of those who choose to terminate a pregnancy when the receive the news that their child has Down Syndrome and the risk of a miscarriage, there is an eighty-six percent chance that the baby will pass away (Press