Already from the title, the religious bias and the clickbaitiness of the article are baffling. The author doesn't take in consideration at all the point of view of the Icelandic government, and generally speaking of people that see this delicate matter differently. There is a complete bias towards a religious moral, that is spread out throughout the whole article, and the author is so lost in his anger that loses the opportunity of writing a good piece on a subject that should be discussed more. The sources cited are aligned with his thought not providing the reader the chance to make up his own mind on the matter. The clickbaitiness of the title hides in his pro-life point of view, where in this case abortion is translated into elimination of people.

While I believe the statistics to be factual, the author does not present them in a way in which the audience is able to interpret for themselves. The use of aggressive language like "sinister," "exterminate," and "murder" is used as an appeal to emotions. The bias from the article creates an immediate defense response which does not allow for a quality discussion.

Alexandra Desanctis, the author of this piece, provided informative links on the decision to terminate or abort Down Syndrome children after prenatal testing. I was neither aware of these practices or how widespread they were. Yet, I believe others who rated this article have fallen into the mantra that pro-life is a religious-only sentiment. Granted, this article is largely written from the personal opinion of the author and her emotions regarding the issue. However, the biggest flaw is in begging the question fallacy. Alexandra assumes that the reason for abortion is to stop the Down Syndrome child from suffering. She even states, "Too many people today believe it is preferable, and indeed more humane, to murder children rather than allow them to suffer. But what life doesn’t have suffering?" If the author had supported the claim that parents aborted because they thought the child would suffer, then I would've trusted this article.

Wow. This very clearly is in favor of the pro-life agenda. The article is extremely one-sided and likens mothers who make the decision to abort unwanted pregnancies to criminals. The author could have posed more constructive questions, such as what kind of implications the acceptance of aborting a fetus with an unwanted genetic characteristic may have.

This is an inflammatory article that falsely equates terminating a pregnancy with killing children. While abortion is a complicated issue, this article doesn't address any of the complications. The point at which the genetic testing is done and the pregnancy is then terminated is never discussed. Unless you think a zygote is a human being, the point at which the pregnancy is terminated would be relevant to the discussion.

This is an opinion piece about a complex debate that will only become more complicated as genome editing technology continues its rapid progression. It's a debate that needs to happen, but it needs to happen without the fear mongering this article is throwing around.

This article is definitely worth a read. Pro-life/Pro-choice is always a fire-y topic and is difficult to write about without bias. This piece is leaning toward the pro-life side of the discussion, but still presents information that I hadn't heard before.

Very interesting topic. The author did an OK job bringing in a spread of sources in discussing the eugenics of eliminating down syndrome, yet I would say this article was, in a way, another "missed opportunity." The article failed to mention how Iceland's society has been raped for the last few decades with air and water contaminants from the industrialized nations of the northern hemisphere. This has been responsible for higher rates of birth defects, such as down syndrome. If a society wants to collectively choose, through individual choices, that they want to eradicate an inhibiting hereditary trait, then they are more progressive and far-looking than most others. Ultimately, the title is click bait and the article is definitely an opinion piece.

What's next...only blond haired blue eyed children can live? This is a frightening trend, if it's true. I'd like to hear more from a government official and medical professionals. Need's more context from both sides. Are the parents really feeling pressure to abort? Needs for substance.

I sensed a strong religious, or more accurately, pro-life bias throughout the piece. The author does well to bring up an issue worth debating more publicly, which is society's use of genetic testing to supplement a mother's decision whether or not to give birth. Some sources were sited but overall this reads too much as an opinion piece and not enough as an objective investigation into Iceland's and the world's policy towards genetics in family planning.