Communication: The "Goodness of Existence" Exterminating a fetus simply because the life may have birth defects, according to Kass, is to obliterate the notion that life in and of itself is good. Existence is good, despite its nature according to Kass. There are currently no standards which dictate how such situations might be handled. These ideas are explored in greater detail below. Kass is very much opposed to the notion of interfering with nature, as well as producing a separate standard of existence for children who are artificially or "naturally" born with defects. Kass would argue that to punish the mother in one circumstance but not another "is blatantly anti-life, making it an offense to keep the baby alive and bring it to birth" (168).

Kass would definitely support the notion that even a "modest prolongation of life" would be satisfying. There is no virtue in the death of a young child according to Kass, or the untimely demise of anyone. He suggests that in fact all human beings must die, but it is not a state that should be inappropriately assigned to anyone.

Both decisions are value-based decisions; there are logical basis for sanctioning women who damage their children, or who engage in activities that are known to be harmful to unborn children, assuming their children are wanted to begin with.

Kass has noted that there are no standards established that adequately determine whether the benefit...

He believes that humans, all humans, should be afforded some sort of dignity. The problem with exterminating a fetus simply because it has birth defects falls into the realm of ethics. To do so without regard to the fetuses potential to live a happy existence is to dehumanize that which is human. For example, exterminating a fetus merely out of preference to have a "normal" child is saying that the baby is not worthy of humanistic consideration. Would society dictate that an individual in an automobile accident who suffers brain damage be killed because they no longer serve a purpose, or because they cease to have the capability of enjoying any aspect of life? Shouldn't one at least consider that every organism has the right to existence unless it can be proven that the existence of that being would be unfulfilling, unrewarding or painful?
The government does not have the right to determine whether it is ok or not for someone to give birth to a child with defects, who might face a life of nothing but suffering. If your choice is to raise that child from cradle to grave, that is a decision that you can make for yourself.

Regardless of whether the child is biologically or physically deficient, one takes risks when they endeavor to reproduce and have children. There is never a guarantee that to bring life into the world will necessarily…