Is the over the counter prenatal gender test ethical?

Intelligender has a product on the market that they say can tell a woman whether she is having a boy for girl as early as 10 weeks after conception (which is really 12 weeks in OB/GYN time.)  And it is sold over the counter at your local pharmacy.

The test works by testing proteins in a woman's urine that are different depending on the sex of the fetus.  As you can imagine pro-lifers everywhere are wary and already dislike this OTC test because it will make it that much easier for a woman to abort her child if it isn't the sex she wants.  I get this sense that pro-lifers are all too ready to blame the makers of this test for any sex selection abortions that are a result of any information their product provides.  I believe this is wrong thinking.

Ethically, I don't think there is anything wrong with the test itself.  There is nothing morally wrong with finding out information about a child you are carrying.  The test is non-invasive.  It does not put the life of the fetus or mother at risk.  What is done with that information is where the moral implications lie. 

Let us put the blame for sex selection abortions in its proper place: a society that allows abortion-on-demand.  For example, from this article out of Australia:

Australian Christian Lobby managing director Jim Wallace said the product should be banned.

"That we would allow a product that would allow eugenics to be practised and started in the home is just unbelievable," he said. 

It is not the test that is "allowing eugenics."  It is the practice of abortion for any reason.  How about banning abortion instead of an over-the-counter test that does not harm the fetus in any way?  The Church is clear that there is nothing inherently wrong with prenatal testing, as long as it is not done with abortion in mind. It is the availability of abortion and the intent to use it that makes any prenatal testing immoral.

Imagine if abortion-on-demand was not legal.  Then how would we feel about this test?  I believe we would embrace it as a wonderful new technology.  As pointed out by Jennifer Parks, co-director of Loyola University Chicago's Programs in Health Care Ethics, in this CNN article:

"When a parent can visualize the sex of their baby and confirm they have that little person inside of them, it suddenly becomes real to them.  They often feel a stronger connection. So, it's not surprising parents would want this test."  [my emphasis]

The problem is not the test.  It is the society that all too easily condones abortion for any reason and the women who would abort a child just because of their sex.  A society so schizophrenic that Jennifer Parks, an ethicist, can utter this statement after the one above:

"Say a woman has three daughters and wants to get pregnant one last time to have a baby boy. If she takes the test at 10 weeks, and it's not the sex she wants, she may want to terminate and try again," Parks said.

"Not everyone in America is rabidly pro-choice, or rapidly pro-life; a lot of Americans kind of hang out right in the middle," she added. "At 10 weeks, most Americans see it as the earliest embryo, very different than a more developed fetus." [my emphasis]

"Baby" and "person" used when discussing loving parents finding out the sex of their wanted child.  "Embryo" and "fetus" used when discussing a mother who would abort her child for being the wrong sex.

This is the disconnect that is the real problem.  As long as abortion-on-demand is the law of the land, ANY test that gives us a glimpse into the womb is a threat to the life that resides there.

Hat Tip: Suzy B