If you have ever had the pleasure of knowing someone with Down syndrome, then this debate may seem preposterous. However, with the culture of death that the leftists in our society are pushing, it is worth talking about prenatal testing and its eugenics implications.

New York Times Magazine has a “Dear Abby” type segment in which people ask “the Ethicist” questions vis-à-vis their moral conundrums. On January 12, the ethicist was asked if prenatal screenings for baby imperfections that led to a couple’s decision to have an abortion constituted eugenics.

The ethicist, Kwame Anthony Appiah, first explains his definition of eugenics — the practice of weeding out the weak and preventing undesirables from procreating — which he says is only troublesome when it is forced on you by governmental edict. In his view, that’s why the Nazis were wrong, and it’s also why Buck v. Bell was wrong — the 1927 Supreme Court ruling whereby forced sterilization was authorized for undesirables, particularly the intellectually disabled. (Buck v. Bell was subsequently superseded, or ruled unconstitutional, in 1942.)

However, he believes that prenatal testing with abortive consequences isn’t eugenics because no one is forcing the parents to abort the “imperfect” child. Appiah also points out: “You’re not hoping to affect our common genetic stock (people with Down syndrome rarely have children, though the rate of Down syndrome in their children is quite high when they do). What you are considering, then, isn’t a eugenic choice.”

Appiah does go on to explain that there is a different immorality at issue when choosing to abort a child who may or may not specifically have Down syndrome. That immorality is a prejudice against people with disabilities. He goes on to explain that people with Down syndrome have longer life expectancies and more opportunities to contribute to society than, say, a baby born with a rare mitochondrial disease — like Britain’s Indi Gregory. (In Indi’s case, the National Health Service forced her parents to take her off life support, so there is an argument under Appiah’s definition of eugenics that the UK definitely met.)

Appiah’s premise is faulty and arbitrary. He assumes that there is a distinct difference between a parental couple choosing to abort because of prenatal test results and the government forcing sterilization based on undesirable qualities. Yes, there is a difference between edict and choice, but the results are the same: an innocent life is taken because of the whims of others.

The ethicist attempts to justify his position on prenatal testing with the “quality of life” argument. A child-centric view, one that regards each baby (regardless of the gestational age) as a gift, is the proper one to have. Prenatal testing isn’t necessarily anti-child-centric unless the result is parents deciding to abort that helpless baby. Prenatal testing is beneficial in the sense that parents and medical professionals can already be using medical interventions to help these babies as they grow and develop. It also gives parents time to modify their expectations for their child if they do indeed have a genetic anomaly such as Down syndrome.

Eugenics, as National Review contributor Wesley J. Smith underscores, is too narrowly defined by Appiah. Smith explains: “Eugenics is more than trying to control the health or other attributes of a general population. Rather, it reflects an all-too-commonly promoted mindset that some people are better or have greater value than others, and that an acceptable answer is to make sure disfavored persons are never conceived — as in the old eugenics of the early 20th century — or never make it out of the womb as occurs today (or even, serving as a justification for infanticide as justified by utilitarians like Peter Singer).”

Under Appiah’s definition, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wouldn’t necessarily qualify as a eugenicist. She wasn’t a government entity forcing black women to abort their babies, though she was trying to eliminate black people from the genetic pool. The crucial part of eugenics is a belief that some people are more valuable than others — and that is false.

Back to the main example of children with Down syndrome. Some countries, like Iceland, brag that they have completely eliminated Down syndrome from their society. How exactly did they do that? Eugenics. They encouraged people to abort their babies who tested positive for Down syndrome in the womb.

A person who has Down syndrome is not less valuable to society than anyone else. Like all humans, they have their fair share of foibles, but, by and large, they tend to exude joy and refreshing innocence that is overall lacking in the larger society. It’s also true that people with Down syndrome have varying abilities for future independence and often have other health issues that go along with their genetic differences. Are they more of a burden on society than a drug-addled homeless vagrant? If one believes that all humans are created equal and are of equal value, then the very question of killing one in the womb because he or she is “imperfect” in the eyes of society is deplorable.

The choice is clear: You love those with Down syndrome (or any child with real or perceived imperfections), not abort them.