In the article ‘Dwarfism: When Is a Fetus Normal’ by Veatch, Haddad, and English, it talks about a couple, Charles and Amanda Harrelson, who were born with achondroplasia dwarfism. This is a disorder in which it affects the cartilage to not correctly develop to bone. The average height for people with this disorder is around four feet, with shorter limbs as well. Achondroplasia dwarfism also has some common side effects such as: back pain, apnea, bowed legs, and obesity. The Harrelson couple is currently pregnant and would like to test their developing baby for the disorder. They are considering getting an abortion if the child carries two of the genes, because of the high risk of severe effects. They are also considering abortion if the child shows no gene mutation because they don’t want the child to be different from them. One ethical argument that the Harrelsons may offer to support their desire to have a child with achondroplasia dwarfism like themselves could be that it brings them happiness. With this being said they are using the principle of utility. The principle of utility states that whether an action is right or wrong it is based on if it leads to …show more content…
I disapprove of their intentions because they are only looking out for the happiness of themselves and not for the greater good. In Gert’s common morality theory, it states 10 rules to see if something someone did is morally okay or not. With the Harrelsons’ aborting the child if it doesn’t carry only one mutation of the gene they are morally wrong by killing, causing pain, and also depriving the baby of freedom. First off, they are disobeying the killing rule by getting an abortion in any circumstance. Secondly, they are causing pain to that fetus without even giving it a chance to live. Lastly, they are depriving the baby of all its freedom. The fetus didn’t choose to carry the genes or not, and aborting it is taking away the freedom it could