Why is it wrong to abort children because of minor genetic anomalies that may or may not present themselves physically during the course of a lifetime? On what grounds does the pro-choice advocate object to this practice? If it were discovered that a brief counseling session with the parents reduces the chances that they will choose abortion as a solution, why would we encourage counseling on genetic or medical issues but condemn it for social or economic issues? All of these questions are brought up by William Saletan’s brief post in his Human Nature at The Slate.
Sometimes the slippery slopes of the choice position reveal themselves all on their own and it is a welcome counter argument to those who claim that pro-life arguments like the SLED acronym are making exaggerated claims. When the value of a human being is determined by virtue of his/her utility, then all human life is in danger of running afoul of those who ultimately define what constitutes useful life. The answer is simple, either human life has value by virtue of its nature or others decide your value by virtue of what you can do or offer. It is personal. Unborn human life is a member of our human family and the more we foster an environment that is dangerous to them, the more we cultivate a culture that is dangerous to us all.