'Doing good' and 'Doing no harm' seem to say almost directly that the mother should make the choice to do good and therefore not to harm the child. Because of these principles, abortion does not appear to be ethical in fundamental terms. But just as in the case of autonomy, beneficence and maleficence can be equally complicated. For example, what would happen if it was known that a child would be born with a serious birth defect that would never allow him or her to live a normal life? In that case, charity would say, “do good and not bring this child into the world?” Or in the case of a woman who has pre-existing health conditions that could jeopardize her life during pregnancy or childbirth, would maleficence say, “do not harm the mother and terminate this pregnancy”? Sometimes doing good or not doing harm is not as simple as it might seem. However, in the debate over beneficence and maleficence there is also room for further middle ground issues to emerge. For example, let's say a mother finds out that her child will be born with Down syndrome in the 10th week of pregnancy. In this scenario, is it good not to bring that child into the world? Some argue yes, due to the pressure of having normal children and the challenges that people with Down syndrome face in society (Jotkowitz). While others argue that people with Down syndrome are capable of being functioning members of society and therefore life should not be taken from them. As can be seen, beneficence and maleficence are not as simple as doing good and not doing evil, but are instead very situational and