Today's New York Times offers a look at what I think has been underdiscussed and underappreciated in the abortion debate. I do try to bring it up when we discuss the topic, but to a large extent this is new ethical territory because the diagnostic technology is also so new. However, whatever your views on abortion, if you or your partner find yourself pregnant, this is increasingly going to be part of the protocol and the decision, whether just theoretical or not, is one that you may have to think about.
Here is the article.
There are political implications as well as the very private and personal ethical ones. Some people don't want to admit they had an "abortion", calling it a miscarriage to others. Some don't want to be harrassed by anti-abortion folks. Interestingly, the tests used to be (and I think in most cases still are--at least mine were and I was last pregnant less than a year ago) performed in the 2nd trimester, when the pregnancy was far along and most likely announced. As the tests becomes more sophisticated, we could conceivably have diagnoses in 1st trimester, when abortions are safer and easier to perform--and I imagine the procedures would become even more common.
Some people who are very pro-life will still have the procedures done--and have to figure out how to justify it to themselves.
Then of course there is eugenics aspect. Some feel that it's wrong to abort fetuses with disabilities because they aren't "perfect" and that it is an affront to the people living with these disabilities--some of whom are able to function quite well, but others (let's be honest) who are not and who have caused their families a great deal of heartbreak.
So as the technology advances, the ethics need to catch up. However, I think that as this does become more common, it's going to increasingly throw a wrench into the abortion debate, which is not as cut and dried as either side would have you believe.