Bibliography peer review

Bria Shillow

Dr. Butkus

PHIL-251-24S 26162

25 January 2024

Topic: Selective Abortions, Genetic Diseases and Ethics

References

1. Blackshaw, B. P. (2020). Genetic Selective Abortion: Still a Matter of Choice.  Ethical Theory & Moral Practice,  23(2), 445–455. https://doi-org.mcneese.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10677-020-10080-5  

Abstract: Jeremy Williams has argued that if we are committed to a liberal pro-choice stance with regard to selective abortion for disability, we will be unable to justify the prohibition of sex selective abortion. Here, I apply his reasoning to selective abortion based on other traits pregnant women may decide are undesirable. These include susceptibility to disease, level of intelligence, physical appearance, sexual orientation, religious belief and criminality—in fact any traits attributable to some degree to a genetic component. Firstly, I review Williams' argument, which claims that if a woman is granted the right to abort based on fetal impairment, then by parity of reasoning she should also be granted the right to choose sex selective abortion. I show that these same considerations that entail the permissibility of sex selective abortion are also applicable to genetic selection abortion. I then examine the objections to sex selective abortion that Williams considers and rejects, and show that they also lack force against genetic selection abortion. Finally, I consider some additional objections that might be raised, and conclude that a liberal pro-choice stance on selective abortion for disability entails the permissibility of selective abortion for most genetic traits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] 

2. Block, W. E. (2023). Response to Hewitt on Abortion.  Studia Humana,  12(4), 23–33. https://doi-org.mcneese.idm.oclc.org/10.2478/sh-2023-0018  

Abstract: The defense argument in favor of abortion sees the fetus as an invader, a trespasser, someone against whom violence is justified, since this very young person (the fetus) has initiated violence against his mother. Hewitt [30] rejects this argument. The present paper maintains the justification of this defense argument. My perspective is based on the private property rights of the mother. She owns her person. It is as if her body is her house, and a trespasser has invaded it. Surely, she has the right to evict such a person. This analogy is relatively easy to see in the case of rape. The unwanted fetus, now occupying a part of her body is in effect a intruder. If she really owns her body, which I contend she certainly does, she has a right to expel this person from her property. I also argue that voluntary sexual intercourse does not constitution an "invitation" for the pre-born baby to occupy her premises for nine months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] 

3. Cross, K. (2023). How Pro-Life Candidates Can Respond to 10 of the Most Common Pro-Abortion Arguments.  National Right to Life News, 8–36. 

Abstract: The article focuses on the role of abortion in the upcoming 2024 elections in the U.S. It discusses how pro-abortion candidates plan to use the issue of abortion to motivate and mobilize voters, and how pro-life candidates need to respond effectively to defend their views and prevent their opponents from defining them negatively. It provides responses to ten common pro-abortion arguments and highlights key points pro-life candidates can use in their campaigns to address these arguments. 

4. DISABLED BODIES ON EARTH AND IN HEAVEN: Eschatology and the Ethics of Selective Abortion. (2021).  Journal of Religious Ethics,  49(2), 358–380. https://doi-org.mcneese.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/jore.12355 

Abstract: A vigorous ethical debate is underway about disability rights and selective abortion. One prodisability group criticizes the ableism of abortion based on prenatal screening. Another group supports legalized abortion but harbors serious concerns about disability bias. This essay moves the debate forward by reflecting on the ethics of selective abortion from a particular theological perspective: eschatology. I critically examine the claim that selective abortion contradicts the principle of Samaritan hospitality and the claim that envisioning disabled people in heaven means that selective abortion is an illegitimate use of women's moral agency. This essay proposes a view of the resurrection using what philosopher call emergence theory, which I argue is prodisability because it conceptualizes how the bodies of beings affected with a disability who die in utero might attain heaven. I also present a view of divine providence that is supportive of women's self‐determination and self‐trust in reproductive issues, including selective abortion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] 

5. King, J. S. (2012). Not This Child: Constitutional Questions in Regulating Noninvasive Prenatal Genetic Diagnosis and Selective Abortion.  UCLA Law Review,  60(1), 2–75. 

Abstract: Recent developments in abortion politics and prenatal genetic testing are currently on a collision course that has the potential to change the way we think about reproduction and reproductive rights. In the fall of 2011, the first noninvasive prenatal genetic test for Down syndrome entered the commercial market, offering highly accurate prenatal genetic tests from a sample of a pregnant woman's blood without posing a risk to the fetus or the mother. In the last five years, over fifty biotechnology start-ups have been created to offer noninvasive prenatal diagnosis (NIPD) for an ever-widening range of genetic and chromosomal conditions. Because of its noninvasive nature, relatively low cost, and early timing, NIPD has the potential to become standard prenatal care for all pregnant women, providing them information on hundreds of genetic and chromosomal characteristics of their prospective offspring soon after they discover the pregnancy. Moreover, the technological development of NIPD has occurred alongside a significant political development: A handful of states have passed or attempted to pass legislation that restricts abortion based on the reasons for which it was sought. These laws have mainly prohibited abortions sought for sex- or race-based reasons, but proposed legislation would also restrict abortions sought for a wider range of genetic conditions. The collision of these political and technological developments raises two questions regarding reproductive autonomy: (1) whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman's right to abort a fetus for any reason; and (2) whether that protection includes the right to access genetic tests that could inform the abortion decision. This Article argues for the reaffirmation of a woman's right to choose to abort for any reason and grounds that right in strong principles of liberty and autonomy, rather than sex equality. In the context of reproductive genetic testing, the Article identifies a legitimate state interest, previously unrecognized in abortion jurisprudence, in avoiding significant harm to society based on widespread discriminatory selective abortion. The Article then proposes a new framework for examining the regulation of reproductive genetic testing that balances the relevant state and individual interests in a novel manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] 

6. Kivity, S., & Barnoy, S. (2023). Women’s Intention to Abort a Fetus Diagnosed With a Genetic Disease: Results From Israel, Cyprus, and Germany.  SAGE Open,  13(3), 1–10. https://doi-org.mcneese.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/21582440231184974  

Abstract: Developments in genetics enable detection of fetal genetic abnormalities. The decision whether to abort is affected by culture, perceived severity of abnormality, and legal regulations. The study aimed to assess the cultural differences in women's intention to abort if their fetus is diagnosed with a genetic disease. A cross-sectional study was conducted in Israel, Germany, and Cyprus. A questionnaire presented six scenarios where the fetus of a pregnant woman is diagnosed with a mild, moderate, or severe genetic disease. For each scenario, the participating women were asked to rate their perceived severity of having a child with the disease, sense of control over performing an abortion, and intention to undergo an abortion. 141 Israeli, 121 German, and 96 Cypriot women participated in the study. The results revealed that Israeli women were more inclined to perform an abortion (Israel: Mild-Disease M ± SD = 3.20 ± 1.37; Moderate-Disease 2.90 ± 1.39; Severe-Disease 4.08 ± 1.51) compared to Cyprus (Mild-Disease SD = 2.74 ± 1.52; Moderate-Disease 2.53 ± 1.27; Severe-Disease 3.41 ± 1.70) and Germany (Mild Disease, M ± SD = 2.38 ± 1.42; Moderate Disease 2.23 ± 1.44; Severe-Disease 2.98 ± 1.51). In all cases, Israeli women reported a higher sense of control over performing an abortion and Cypriot women expressed the highest perceived severity. Sense of control, perceived severity, being Israeli, and increased age explained 31% of the variance in the intention to abort (F = 54.39). Intention to abort following the diagnosis of a fetus with a genetic disease varies by country. There is a greater intention to abort when women feel more control, and have a higher perceived severity, regardless of the severity of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] 

7. LeDuc, R. (2015). Should We Be Concerned about What Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion Express?  Penn Bioethics Journal,  11(1), 23–25. 

Abstract: Prenatal diagnostic (PND) testing during the early months of pregnancy are increasingly employed to screen for a range of genetic diseases. A test result indicating the child has a disease associated with disability prompts many parents to consider the termination of the pregnancy. This practice of "selective abortion" and its social implications have generated concern among disability rights advocates. One widely-held view of disability scholars is known as the Expressivist Argument, which claims that selective abortion is harmful and morally problematic because of what it implies about the worth of disabled individuals. This piece presents the debate between disability scholars and bioethicists regarding the Expressivist Argument. In its support, I explore claims that selective abortion after a disability diagnosis implies that there is something "wrong" with the aborted fetus, and that not living is preferable to living a disabled life. In opposition, I consider the impact of disability on the child's life, as well as positions stating that selective abortion is not inconsistent with supporting the disabled community. Finally, the relationship between disability and identity is explored in the context of this debate. After evaluating multiple viewpoints with regard to the Expressivist Argument, I consider its key takeaways for the future of eugenics debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] 

8. Schouten, G. (2017). Fetuses, Orphans, and a Famous Violinist: On the Ethics and Politics of Abortion.  Social Theory & Practice,  43(3), 637–665. https://doi-org.mcneese.idm.oclc.org/10.5840/soctheorpract20178417  

Abstract: In this paper, I urge feminists to re-center fetal moral status in their theorizing about abortion. I argue that fundamental feminist normative commitments are at odds with efforts to de-emphasize fetal moral status: The feminist commitment to ensuring care for dependents supports surprising conclusions with regard to the ethics of abortion, and the feminist commitment to politicizing the personal has surprising conclusions regarding the politics of abortion. But these feminist insights also support the conclusion that, conditional on fetal moral status, care for unwanted fetuses would be a social obligation that only derivatively falls to women who are unwillingly pregnant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] 

 

9. Shakour, M., Yousefi, A., Bazrafkan, leila, Jouhari, Z., Taheri, S., & Omid, A. (2014). The ethical aspects of abortion in medical education.  Iranian Journal of Microbiology,  6(1), 24–34. 

Abstract: Abortion is a challenging issue. It is proposed as a problem in medical philosophy and medical ethics texts. In dealing with abortion, graduate medical students may be influenced by different situations, or make a decision according to their conscience. Therefore they should acquire a satisfactory level of ethical development to deal with these issues during their years of education. Some things that are important for education on abortion are law, religious and moral reasoning, understanding the moral reasoning of people who request an elective abortion and related ethical philosophies. If health providers want to make the right decision and manage the patient suitably, they should be aware of the moral reasoning of the abortion applicant, religious moral reasoning, legal issues, and the ethical philosophies related to elective abortion, so they can do the best thing when dealing with abortion applicants. Sometimes the abortion applicant or the health provider thinks that abortion is an ethical action, but according to religion and the philosophy of ethics it is not. Therefore supporting health may be warranted by educating medical students on ethics as well as religious rules and legal issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] 

10. Sun, H., Mao, J., Su, X., & Du, Q. (2023). Impact of spontaneous abortion history and induced abortion history on perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies.  BMC Public Health,  23(1), 1–10. https://doi-org.mcneese.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17264-5 

Abstract: At present, there are several studies on abortion history and perinatal outcomes, but there is no unified conclusion whether the history of abortion and different types of abortion are related to perinatal complications of subsequent pregnancy. We aim to study the impact of different types of abortion history on perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies. Methods: This was a retrospective study from a maternity and infant hospital in Shanghai, China from 2016 to 2020. Pregnant women who gave birth to live singleton infant were included (n = 75,773). We classified abortion into spontaneous abortion (SAB) and induced abortion (IA). We compared the perinatal outcomes of singleton pregnancies with different abortion histories and used Logistic regression analysis to evaluate the associations between pre-pregnancy abortion history with perinatal outcomes. Results: We observed that pregnant women with a history of abortion were more likely to have a premature delivery (0.99% VS 0.45%), gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (13.40% VS 10.29%), placenta abnormality (8.16% VS 5.06%), placenta previa (5.65% VS 3.75%), placenta accreta (0.18% VS 0.04%), and placenta adhesion (2.79% VS 1.03%) than those who obtained singleton pregnancies without a history of abortion. When confounding factors were adjusted, differences in placenta abnormality still existed (excluding placenta abruption). The odds ratios and 95% confidence interval of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and placenta adhesion in pregnant women with only SAB history, only IA history, and both abortion history were 1.294(1.174–1.427), 1.272(1.159–1.396), and 1.390(1.188–1.625), 2.688(1.344–5.374), 2.549(1.268–5.125), and 5.041(2.232–11.386), 2.170(1.872–2.515), 2.028(1.738–2.366), and 3.580(2.917–4.395), respectively. Conclusions: Our research showed that pregnant women who have a history of abortion before pregnancy were more likely to have premature birth, GDM, placenta previa, placenta accreta, and placenta adhesion. After adjusting for confounding factors, we found that the history of SAB, IA, and both SAB and IA history were related to the increased risk of placenta previa, placenta accreta, and placenta adhesion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]