The ethical lines are becoming blurred.
What defines abnormal? Is deafness so abnormal a parent chooses to abort? What about sex-selection?
These are the questions that have been raised in a major new report by the UK's Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
It was focused on the ethics of screening for foetal abnormalities especially in light of a breakthrough in the form of the NIPT test.
This test uses blood samples taken from a pregnant woman 9 weeks into pregnancy. It analyses DNA from the placenta and can estimate the chances of genetic abnormalities such as Down's, Edward's or Patau's syndromes as well as gene disorders like cystic fibrosis.
It can also determine the sex of the baby at that stage.
The test is available in private hospitals in the UK and from 2018 it will be offered by the NHS to women more likely to have a fetus with those disorders.
It also means around 90 % of babies with Down Syndrome would be aborted. And this is the crux of the issue.
The council is worried about the ethics of the test - it wants a ban on using it to reveal the sex of the baby because it may lead to sex-selective abortion.
And although it endorses "liberal eugenics" - it says that tests that can improve the genetics of future children are only acceptable when they are chosen by prospective parents and not of the state.
Bioedge journal says that the problem remains that pre-natal testing has become so intertwined with modern reproductive patterns that it will be hard to ban anything - and ultimately, a woman’s right to choose will nearly always trump the right of the disabled to live.
Where do you stand on this issue? How can science define 'normal?'
