Exploring Approach 2: Life is a gift

I think one of the important values here is that we follow a precautionary approach, as there are so many unknowns, such that any decisions are taken very slowly.

It is clear that they do not wish any life to be destroyed, even if there is the risk of disability, which means preserving all embryos and not requiring such testing at all. This has parallels to abortion debates, but expands beyond simply whether one is ready for a child, to whether one is ready for a child with the possibility of disability or certain characteristics.

@Jenna Robson I support your idea but I thinks tests needs to be done so the parents and family know in advance the disabilities the child will possess. It will be a surprise and disappointment for me If a give birth to a disable child without knowing the type of disabilities he/she will possess. Some parent will consider abortion when undertaking tests and that depends on how they value life. It all depends on individuals choices and the mandatory tests for women who wants to have a baby. This topic is too complicated to come up with a conclusion when dealing with how people value life when it comes to disability.

On a more personal level, just thinking about it, I’m not sure how accurate this sort of testing applies to congenital heart defects (one of which I was born with). But if testing were possible, I don’t know what my parents would have done. So of course, I am glad I was born, but I have always thought that the physical challenges it posed growing up led me to be the resilient and adaptable person I am today. So I can see that there is some merit in this view, as it runs the risk of a uniform society with reduced diversity of thought and experiences.

I think you make a very good point. Although I always support the rights of mothers/parents to choose, I do worry about where the line should be, who gets to decide, and whether we undervalue diversity of ability.

From my own view point, I see life as a gift from God and is more valuable and every child has a right to live. Even if born disabled, it was God given. It could be so stressful for a family to take care for the disabled child but tests needs to be done at an early stage to prepare for what's coming. Destroying an embryo when discovering the disabilities the child will possess is the same as destroying a healthy child. All children whether it be a healthy child or a disabled one  needs to be part of a society and be given the same love and affection.

Financial costs involved in caring for the disabled could be a hindrance in the family and this is when government intervention is needed. Government’s main aim is to provide better services to every citizen. All infrastructure build has to be socially inclusive meaning disabled citizens can have easy access to all facilities constructed by the government. Also, the government needs to allocate funds and support system for families with disable child. If government support and infrastructure are good to take care for the disable ones, people will value life as a gift and see everyone as equal. To support this approach, it all comes back to how people value life in situations and circumstances surrounding them to care for a disable citizen.

Thanks @John Penny for looking at things from a perspective you don't agree with and finding a couple of areas of common ground. This is what deliberation is all about and is also why we're using the appreciative question about value in this exploration first - this is a way of 'listening' to people who see things differently, something that our society and our politics is not good at. That's why I'm going to 'hold' our exploration for a while in this value/appreciative space before moving us onto the question about consequences, which most of us will find easy as critiquing is a strong part of our culture.

@Jenna Robson, your reflection on your personal history raise some excellent points about who should be born and how we value people. And I think you are right that at least some supporters of this approach would urge pre-caution. For example, IVF is actually quite a new technology. The first IVF baby was born in 1978 and she is only 41 now. No side effects were anticipated but we may not know for sure until a couple there have been a couple of generations of IVF babies.

I think one of the things that is most valuable is that life is a gift A gift that should be loved, respected and cared for. There is value and potential in every life and we can never realize this life is terminated as a result of pre-birth testing.

It comes down to the point that every life has the right to live and we should not play judge and jury.

Good points @Lillian Smith about people who support the life is a gift approach valuing really important things like everyone needing love and affection and the need to support people to care for disabled children.

Great to acknowledge Lillian's post and very nicely put, @Margaret Aulda

I think that one of the things people who support Approach 2 may be concerned about is the risk that, following any type of testing, a parent may consider aborting their baby. By ensuring that parents do not have the option to abort, this forces them to confront the reality of any of their newborn child's health issues upon the birth. I think that those who support Approach 2 believe that this will force parents to accept reality and care for their child, regardless of the child's health or developmental status.

EDIT: I re-read the choicebook more closely and saw that testing is fine as long as as there is no discarding of embryos or abortion of fetuses- apologies! I've changed my point slightly to reflect this.