Well, whether or not we can 100% eliminate the old problems, there will be new ones anyway.
As for what parents-to-be would do, assuming a world in which women have the right to choose (a world that is otherwise, I don't care to imagine), I think that's going to depend largely on what information is available to them. I think generally that the later in pregnancy (more parental bonding) it happens, and the better the risk profile looks, the more likely people are to continue the pregnancy. In other words, if the probability is very small that the injury will be very severe, and the woman is already thinking of her baby as a baby...she will probably continue the pregnancy. If on the other hand she knows that the injury will be very severe and/or the pregnancy is quite new, she will be less likely to.
But most of the time what happens is that we don't know that X is dangerous in pregnancy until we find out the hard way. That's what happened with thalidomide.
Of course one argument is that prenatal injury may be minimised because we'll have the technology to grow fetuses outside the human body--but then, you have the possibility for all sorts of other things, like terrorist attacks on incubator facilities and the like.
If you want to write a disabled character, there is always a way to do that. It doesn't mean that we have to decide that society made a conscious choice to preserve Down's syndrome, spina bifida or multiple sclerosis.
no subject
As for what parents-to-be would do, assuming a world in which women have the right to choose (a world that is otherwise, I don't care to imagine), I think that's going to depend largely on what information is available to them. I think generally that the later in pregnancy (more parental bonding) it happens, and the better the risk profile looks, the more likely people are to continue the pregnancy. In other words, if the probability is very small that the injury will be very severe, and the woman is already thinking of her baby as a baby...she will probably continue the pregnancy. If on the other hand she knows that the injury will be very severe and/or the pregnancy is quite new, she will be less likely to.
But most of the time what happens is that we don't know that X is dangerous in pregnancy until we find out the hard way. That's what happened with thalidomide.
Of course one argument is that prenatal injury may be minimised because we'll have the technology to grow fetuses outside the human body--but then, you have the possibility for all sorts of other things, like terrorist attacks on incubator facilities and the like.
If you want to write a disabled character, there is always a way to do that. It doesn't mean that we have to decide that society made a conscious choice to preserve Down's syndrome, spina bifida or multiple sclerosis.