[rayiner]

> The mother, exclusively, can decide whether or not she wants to proceed with the pregnancy through to birth, and she doesn't need a reason other than "I don't feel like it".

The morality of that is quite vigorously contested. And even in places that have elective abortion, it’s often only available in the first trimester, while many of these tests are performed after that.

But even if we accept the notion of elective abortions, it doesn’t follow that any reason is morally acceptable. What if the parents don’t want girls, like often is the case in India and China. It’s okay to abort them? What if we had an in vitro test for sexual orientation? Would it be okay to abort fetuses in that basis?

[honkycat]

Moral and legal are two different classifications.

I think it should be LEGAL to have an abortion no matter your reasoning. The reason for this is we need to preserve the bodily autonomy of people who can become pregnant.

Weather or not it is MORAL is another question.

It is LEGAL to protest outside of a veteran's funeral. However, I would argue it is not a MORAL thing to do.

[JamesBarney]

There are plenty of ways we don't protect people's bodily autonomy though. For instance it was illegal for anyone to take Paxlovid until FDA approval.

If we can ban someone from taking a potentially life saving drug it doesn't seem crazy to ban someone from taking what half the population believes is a life ending drug.

[rayiner]

We’re talking about morality in the context of this article, since abortions based on this testing are legal in the United States and most other developed countries.