# Abortion & Eugenics



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

Abortion is legal in the USA, ever since the Rowe v Wade decision, which held that not that a woman has a right to an abortion, but that a woman's right to privacy is violated by anti-abortion laws.  It was rather an unusual way for the SCOTUS to get the Constitution to agree that the federal government (and the states by extension) could not outlaw abortion.  Nonetheless, abortion is legal, and it is doubtful that this will be changed anytime soon.  Nor am I suggesting that it should be.  And the right to privacy would seem to indicate that the 'why' a woman chooses an abortion cannot be asked - it is a private matter entirely.  But is that always true?

I do have some thoughts vis-a-vis abortion in these modern times.  We are now able, with quite a bit of accuracy, to determine if a fetus (or unborn child if you prefer) has medical issues that will require lifelong care, great medical expense, or early death, such as birth defects.  It is not that unusual for parents to choose to terminate a pregnancy on the basis of those kind of findings, although of course this is not the kind of thing that is talked about much in polite society.

But now we can go further.  We can detect genetic tendencies to certain diseases, we can detect gender.  I wonder how long it will be before we can detect what the child's hair or eye color will be?

Now, if we say that a woman's right to choose an abortion is absolute, can we then not consider the reasons for the abortion?  That's the core of my question.

Suppose a woman belongs to a white-supremacist movement, and she wants an Aryan baby.  She knows the child will be Caucasian due to both parents being white.  But what if the genetics tell her that the child will be sickly, or short, or predisposed to obesity, or have brown hair or eyes?  She has an abortion hoping to be able to try again to create a blond-haired, blue-eyed child.  Is that OK?

And if it is OK, what if it becomes a trend?  Not just white-supremacists, but people looking for a child who will excel in sports or be highly intelligent or so on?  We already see how many parents these days are ultra-competitive and ultra-protective of their children; they live through them and demand they participate in every sport, play every instrument, excel in all things.  Imagine when they can use genetics to determine what their child might not be good at and to selectively have abortions if it's not what they want?  Is that kind of abortion OK?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51671-2005Apr13.html

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/The-abortion-debate-that-wasn-t-1178454.php

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...g-mean-when-she-linked-abortion-and-eugenics/

And what truly interests me is that neither the people who are pro-life, nor those who are pro-choice, seem to want to talk about this.

Why is that?


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

It's definitely happening:






My gut feeling, not well considered, is that it isn't really OK to select for baseline traits like eye color or select for increased ability, but it is OK to select against life altering deficits like birth defects.  I admit that this gut feeling might not be all that defensible, but I suspect that most average people share this view.

The problem though is actually doing anything about it.  Let's say we make selecting for superficial characteristics illegal.  How do we determine that's the case?  Asking would be a further, albeit smaller, invasion of privacy and self-determination.  What if the woman lies or simply does not answer?  Will the Eugenics Police comb through her acquaintances and communications searching for evidence of improper motivation?  This is obviously unacceptable, and also a violation of the conservative position that we punish acts, not mindsets (although of course we do punish mindsets, even now, which are mostly non-controversial).  There is no way to police this that I can think of short of making abortion illegal, which is also unacceptable based on the right to bodily self-determination.

My feeling might be that this is wrong, but i don't think anything can be done about it.  Freedom is tricky, sometimes people will use it to do things you disapprove of.  Taking away their ability to do that which you disapprove of can have even worse results.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 2, 2011)

I think rather than abortions they would go for 'designer' children either by chosing the father for his IQ, sporting abilities etc as is possible now or by genetic engineering. I think the future will bring the possibility of designing your baby *before* you conceive hence there would be little need for abortions because the child didn't 'fit' the expectations of the parents. The child would be exactly what the parent wanted, on the other hand it could mean the end of conditions that are or are passed on by genetics. We are fairly close to being able to tell what gene does what and to alter certain genes already.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 2, 2011)

I agree with what has been said so far but I am, broadly, not against parents selecting not to carry to term a fetus that is seriously congenitally defective.  Selecting for hair and eye colour is a trivial abuse of the right to choose but opting to not add to the burden of 'defective', non-advantageous, mutations in the gene-pool is positive, if somewhat scarily fascist.

One thing that has to born in mind in a dispassionate way is that, clever as we are, we do not yet see all ends, so to speak and working to eradicate something seen as harmful might bring some unintended consequences home to roost later down the line.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 2, 2011)

My landlord in college was a professor. It was fairly common knowledge that his wife had aborted three pregnancies due to the results of amniocentesis (sp?) revealing the gender of their fetus. They already had a boy, and they wanted a girl-then they were going to stop having children.

Of course, it's my opinion that some people shouldn't be allowed to have children at all, but that's neither here nor there. _This was 31 years ago, _and I'm sure they weren't the only ones. Oh, and it was "fairly common knowledge" because they told people:they told *me*. Thought they were being very modern.....


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> My gut feeling, not well considered, is that it isn't really OK to select for baseline traits like eye color or select for increased ability, but it is OK to select against life altering deficits like birth defects.  I admit that this gut feeling might not be all that defensible, but I suspect that most average people share this view.



I like your response, thanks!

I do have a couple questions, though.  

If you agree that selecting (via abortion) *against* defects is OK, then is selecting *for* advantages also OK?  

And what if we're talking not about actual defects (such as Down's Syndrome) but genetic *predisposition* to certain problems, such as a marked increase in risk of some dread disease, which the child might or might not eventually contract?

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, not to be disagreeable, but to see what you think - I quite honestly do not have an agenda here, I promise.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think rather than abortions they would go for 'designer' children either by chosing the father for his IQ, sporting abilities etc as is possible now or by genetic engineering. I think the future will bring the possibility of designing your baby *before* you conceive hence there would be little need for abortions because the child didn't 'fit' the expectations of the parents. The child would be exactly what the parent wanted, on the other hand it could mean the end of conditions that are or are passed on by genetics. We are fairly close to being able to tell what gene does what and to alter certain genes already.



I don't disagree that this will and even has happened, but I respectfully think you're sidestepping the question.  Presume the parents have selected as best they can for whatever eugenic properties they wish; a child that matches the couch, or one with a big brain or an eventual height of over six feet tall.  Then, prenatal genetic testing tells them that despite their best efforts, this is not to be with this particular fetus.  How now?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> I agree with what has been said so far but I am, broadly, not against parents selecting not to carry to term a fetus that is seriously congenitally defective.  Selecting for hair and eye colour is a trivial abuse of the right to choose but opting to not add to the burden of 'defective', non-advantageous, mutations in the gene-pool is positive, if somewhat scarily fascist.
> 
> One thing that has to born in mind in a dispassionate way is that, clever as we are, we do not yet see all ends, so to speak and working to eradicate something seen as harmful might bring some unintended consequences home to roost later down the line.



But we're still ignoring the space between mere trivialities such as hair and eye color and congenital health problems such as Down's Syndrome.  What of the parents who want a child gifted enough physically to play rugby at a professional level, or predisposed to a high intellect?  Not quite so trivial in terms of widespread adoption of such choices; it would seem that a nation of such designer babies would in just a few generations fulfill the eugenics dream of a nearly 'undesirable' free society.  Would it not?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But we're still ignoring the space between mere trivialities such as hair and eye color and congenital health problems such as Down's Syndrome. What of the parents who want a child gifted enough physically to play rugby at a professional level, or predisposed to a high intellect? Not quite so trivial in terms of widespread adoption of such choices; it would seem that a nation of such designer babies would in just a few generations fulfill the eugenics dream of a nearly 'undesirable' free society. Would it not?



We're nearing the point where all of that could be prengineered-if that's what you're getting at, then, of course parents will occasionally  find out that despite the efforts of their engineering, the_ product _will be other than intended, and will _return_ said product, so to speak, in order to begin the process again, and obtain what they desire


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2011)

Ultimately, I wouldn't want to curb a woman's right to abort a child based on preferences (skin color, sex, weight, whatever) for the same reason I wouldn't want to curb the KKK's ability to have a peaceable yet hateful speech rally.  Rights are rights, even when the person's motivation for exercising them disgust me.  

The issue is a bit personal for me because I was born in the early 80s with a birth defect that would, nowadays, have been identifiable while I was still in the womb.  I would not have begrudged my parents if, in that situation, they chose to abort me based on that fact. Yes, I know, I wouldn't have been alive to begrudge them anyway, but you get the point.  On the other hand, if they'd chose to abort me because they wanted a girl, or someone tall, yeah, I'd be offended.  

The entire premise of the Roe v. Wade decision (which, incidentally, I support) is that, for the first trimester, it's a woman's choice entirely, and the State has no right to intrude on her decision.  Nothing in their reflects her motives for seeking an abortion, and I wouldn't change that, even if her motives were the most racist, superficial reasons one could think of.  

And that's all I can really say on the subject.


----------



## Nomad (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But we're still ignoring the space between mere trivialities such as hair and eye color and congenital health problems such as Down's Syndrome.  What of the parents who want a child gifted enough physically to play rugby at a professional level, or predisposed to a high intellect?  Not quite so trivial in terms of widespread adoption of such choices; it would seem that a nation of such designer babies would in just a few generations fulfill the eugenics dream of a nearly 'undesirable' free society.  Would it not?



Not to derail the post at all, but another aspect of this is that genetic predeterminations of this specificity (then followed by either a simple abortion procedure, or as Tez was alluding to, direct genetic manipulation to tweak things in the direction the parents want) are unlikely to be free or covered by insurance policies (not for the foreseeable future at least).  At this point, it becomes a tool or trick that's really only available to the wealthy.  

Anyone else seeing a Morlock vs. Hypersapien thing potentially happening down the road?  Just some random thoughts to stir the pot.

It's definitely an interesting topic!


----------



## granfire (Sep 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> We're nearing the point where all of that could be prengineered-if that's what you're getting at, then, of course parents will occasionally  find out that despite the efforts of their engineering, the_ product _will be other than intended, and will _return_ said product, so to speak, in order to begin the process again, and obtain what they desire



brave new world?

You propose they shove it back?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 2, 2011)

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]At a March  1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker  warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril.  The man  was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of  Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with  other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.[/FONT]


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 2, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think rather than abortions they would go for 'designer' children either by chosing the father for his IQ, sporting abilities etc as is possible now or by genetic engineering. I think the future will bring the possibility of designing your baby *before* you conceive hence there would be little need for abortions because the child didn't 'fit' the expectations of the parents. The child would be exactly what the parent wanted, on the other hand it could mean the end of conditions that are or are passed on by genetics. We are fairly close to being able to tell what gene does what and to alter certain genes already.



http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/gattaca/


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2011)

Just a minor detail, but isn't the whole "Brave New World" concern one of the State (as in national authority, not state v. federal) enacting national policies to either encourage or force breeding preferences?  So far, the discussion has been about an individual mother's choice rather than any State-sponsored preferences.  A subtle difference to be sure, but an important one.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 2, 2011)

granfire said:


> brave new world?You propose they shove it back?


I've got two grown kids, grand. I honestly don't care, one way or the other. Future impacts on society won't affect me.


----------



## granfire (Sep 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> I've got two grown kids, grand. I honestly don't care, one way or the other. Future impacts on society won't affect me.



unless you are dead social impact always affects society.


----------



## cdunn (Sep 2, 2011)

Some thoughts;

We already see the two being combined on a massive scale in some cultures, particularly in China and Inda, re: gender selection of children. 

The morality of the decision, imo, falls back to this: A point, preferably minimally arbitrary, has to be selected at which an embryo or foetus ceases to be a thing which has the potential to become a human, and becomes a human being. At this point, it must be awarded all the rights which we expect a human to hold, including life. Prior to this time, however, being not yet human, we have to rely on a different set of ethics. However, not being yet human, the level of obligation that the woman holds to it must pale in response to her own right to have control of her own body. Now, it is instinctual for us to believe that the mother has a certain level of obligation to the child, and therein lies our discomfort with 'trivial' reasons for abortion. That level of obligation was once a part of our survival as a species - It is not surprising, therefore, that subconsciously, we would want to balance the reasons we might destroy the fetus to the potential impact it might have on us.  

There is, to me, a bright line drawn, not at conception, but at consciousness. Once the brain turns on, and we begin to become aware of our existence, it can no longer be denied, in any fashion, that we are now human beings. Before that time, we are things that might eventually be humans, but also might not. Before that line, well, what moral system would you like to use to determine just how much obligation a woman has to a non-human embyro / foetus?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Some thoughts;
> 
> We already see the two being combined on a massive scale in some cultures, particularly in China and Inda, re: gender selection of children.
> 
> ...



I think that's a well-thought-out opinion, but again, it sidesteps the question of eugenics by simply referring to 'trivial' reasons for abortion.  What of non-trivial reasons?


----------



## elder999 (Sep 2, 2011)

granfire said:


> unless you are dead social impact always affects society.


These things that we're talking about? Won't affect *me*. I'll be dead.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> But we're still ignoring the space between mere trivialities such as hair and eye color and congenital health problems such as Down's Syndrome.  What of the parents who want a child gifted enough physically to play rugby at a professional level, or predisposed to a high intellect?  Not quite so trivial in terms of widespread adoption of such choices; it would seem that a nation of such designer babies would in just a few generations fulfill the eugenics dream of a nearly 'undesirable' free society.  Would it not?



Hmmm ... {ponders}

For me, it is much easier to argue convincingly to not create 'pre-broken' humans than it is to argue for opting in for 'extra shiny' humans.  After all, altho' we are not consciously aware of it, all of us are programmed by our own genes to select a partner whose genes are compatible with our own - enough differences to shake up the mix a bit but not so many as to make our offspring too different from ourselves.


----------



## cdunn (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think that's a well-thought-out opinion, but again, it sidesteps the question of eugenics by simply referring to 'trivial' reasons for abortion.  What of non-trivial reasons?



Well, that's going to depend on what you pick to determine her obligation to the not-yet-human foetus.  If that reason is greater than the obligation, then it is 'non-trivial', then full speed ahead. I would hazard that if the selected traits are likely to benefit the eventual child, or the society around them, -and- outweigh the personal risks to the woman, then you can make a significant argument. That, I expect, can only be answered by the woman bearing the child.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

cdunn said:


> There is, to me, a bright line drawn, not at conception, but at consciousness. Once the brain turns on, and we begin to become aware of our existence, it can no longer be denied, in any fashion, that we are now human beings.



That bright line turns out to be pretty murky, unfortunately.  Even when "brain waves" can be detected in the fetus, that is not consciousness, at least not yet.  Isolated neurons in a cell culture dish will display "brain waves" of their own, and no one thinks a handful of neurons firing in a plate is self-conscious.  When neurons begin firing in the fetus, the connections are still too simple to support consciousness.  At some point consciousness is definitely there, but no one can pinpoint a moment where it emerges.  My opinion?  It's going to be a slow continuum, like very slowly waking up from a deep sleep, and there is no single moment we will be able to point to that defines the beginning of consciousness.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> Hmmm ... {ponders}
> 
> For me, it is much easier to argue convincingly to not create 'pre-broken' humans than it is to argue for opting in for 'extra shiny' humans.  After all, altho' we are not consciously aware of it, all of us are programmed by our own genes to select a partner whose genes are compatible with our own - enough differences to shake up the mix a bit but not so many as to make our offspring too different from ourselves.



Again, though, to the topic of abortion as the means to obtain either one...we do seem to shy away from thinking about that, don't we?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Again, though, to the topic of abortion as the means to obtain either one...we do seem to shy away from thinking about that, don't we?



Are you trying to generate discussion of the choice itself, or more the whether such choice should be permitted?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

cdunn said:


> Well, that's going to depend on what you pick to determine her obligation to the not-yet-human foetus.  If that reason is greater than the obligation, then it is 'non-trivial', then full speed ahead. I would hazard that if the selected traits are likely to benefit the eventual child, or the society around them, -and- outweigh the personal risks to the woman, then you can make a significant argument. That, I expect, can only be answered by the woman bearing the child.



And now we have the issue that has confronted the very topic of eugenics in general.  Benefit to whom?  And by what standards?  Who decides?  A very large, wealthy, and powerful society once decided the benefit to society was to have a human population without Jews in it.  Granted that this was government control of the eugenics concept, but it was also urged via propaganda on every German citizen, to bring forth pure-blooded Aryans to populate the world.  Towards the end, women were even urged to forgo marriage if they could only become rapidly and continuously pregnant with the desired sort of child...

It was, of course, the end of the eugenics movement as an acceptable and social movement; but when one is talking 'betterment of society', it of course takes us to 'by what definition'?


----------



## cdunn (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And now we have the issue that has confronted the very topic of eugenics in general.  Benefit to whom?  And by what standards?  Who decides?  A very large, wealthy, and powerful society once decided the benefit to society was to have a human population without Jews in it.  Granted that this was government control of the eugenics concept, but it was also urged via propaganda on every German citizen, to bring forth pure-blooded Aryans to populate the world.  Towards the end, women were even urged to forgo marriage if they could only become rapidly and continuously pregnant with the desired sort of child...
> 
> It was, of course, the end of the eugenics movement as an acceptable and social movement; but when one is talking 'betterment of society', it of course takes us to 'by what definition'?



I didn't say they were easy questions. Just the ones that we have to ask.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you agree that selecting (via abortion) *against* defects is OK, then is selecting *for* advantages also OK?



No, I don't think it's OK.  Like I said though, I'm not sure this position is defensible, because logically there isn't that big of a difference.  It makes me uncomfortable.  Plus, as a biologist, I know what would actually be involved in this process, and not many people would be comfortable with it.  Both to obtain the knowledge by experimentation and in the actual process of creating a new child.  You would have to make many genetic changes and then allow the fetuses to come to term to truly determine the effect of a genetic change, especially since most traits are multigenic.  Some of those genetic changes will have horrible effects, so you would be creating people knowing full well that some would be suffering.  Creating the altered embryos in the first place would also involve manipulation beyond which most people are comfortable.  When we do it in mice, it's fascinating.  I have no desire to see people treated the same way.

Genetic engineering against a specific disease is less fraught, at least for single gene diseases that are well understood.  Our biggest killers are heart disease and cancer though, not rare genetic diseases.  



Bill Mattocks said:


> And what if we're talking not about actual defects (such as Down's Syndrome) but genetic *predisposition* to certain problems, such as a marked increase in risk of some dread disease, which the child might or might not eventually contract?



I suppose it would have to depend on the specifics.  Not very satisfying, but there it is.  Some predisposition alleles have a very large influence on disease incidence, and are near guarantees of catching the disease.  Those I don't have too much of a problem with, although it is still a problem because we are betting on statistics rather than the actual presence of a disease or defect.  Most predisposition alleles however have a very small effect on their own, and I couldn't see aborting just because one such gene was present.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Are you trying to generate discussion of the choice itself, or more the whether such choice should be permitted?



I am trying to examine the concept of abortion as an inalienable right of the mother versus possible situations where abortion might be considered both immoral and wrong even by those who support a woman's right to choose.  I am trying to imagine if there is a point at which a person in favor of legal abortion would say _"Well, no, not if *that* is your reason."_  Otherwise, it would appear on the surface that one is trapped (and I am not trying to trap anyone, just noting it) into defending even eugenics when applied to abortion.  And that seems an uncomfortable situation to find oneself in.

There is no 'ah-ha' or 'gotcha' here, I assure you.  My thoughts were towards the concept of abortion as an absolute right as seen against various backdrops, including the concept of eugenics.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

Just so everyone knows what we are talking about. This is the most common method for generating animals with specific, targeted genetic changes, either to add or subtract.  You can see why this would make people nervous.  You would dissociate one embryo, and then injected the altered cells into another embryo.  You would be generating chimeric, hybrid people that are the combination of 2 individual embryos.  Very few people would be comfortable with this in humans.

Other methods will no doubt be developed, perhaps based on viruses or transposons, but this is the state of the art right now.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am trying to examine the concept of abortion as an inalienable right of the mother versus possible situations where abortion might be considered both immoral and wrong even by those who support a woman's right to choose.



There are actually plenty of pro-choice people who think that abortion is wrong.  They just believe that the consequences of outlawing abortion is worse.  I'm sure nearly every pro-choice person could come up with a situation in which they think abortion is wrong, but still thinks the consequences of outlawing are worse.  Very few people think that abortion is a positive moral good, and most people who think it is a neutral moral good stop thinking so around the end of the 2nd trimester.  Consequences, consequences though stay their hand from desiring governmental regulation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Genetic engineering against a specific disease is less fraught, at least for single gene diseases that are well understood.  Our biggest killers are heart disease and cancer though, not rare genetic diseases.



I would not presume to have your knowledge of genetics, but is it not true that we have identified some genetic markers that appear to convey predisposition both to and against certain forms of cancer and heart disease?  I recall reading just the other day about a gene that appears to convey the predisposition to being thin (in this case, even to the point of being too thin).  A side-note, but it was also fascinating to me because it appears that this particular gene appears in about half of the children taken away from parents in the UK for 'failure to thrive', which would tend to imply that their parents were thought not to be feeding them, when in fact the children were genetically predisposed to unnatural thinness...



> I suppose it would have to depend on the specifics.  Not very satisfying, but there it is.  Some predisposition alleles have a very large influence on disease incidence, and are near guarantees of catching the disease.  Those I don't have too much of a problem with, although it is still a problem because we are betting on statistics rather than the actual presence of a disease or defect.  Most predisposition alleles however have a very small effect on their own, and I couldn't see aborting just because one such gene was present.



So you would say that there is a tipping point, but you're uncomfortable defining at what point the balance would change, then?  Not trying to put words in your mouth.  And in the case of abortion, if a woman's right to choose an abortion is absolute, would it not be up to her, whether or not a level of statistical comfort had been reached?  Could we as a society even enquire?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Other methods will no doubt be developed, perhaps based on viruses or transposons, but this is the state of the art right now.



Actually, I was thinking of even more basic stuff.  Not genetic manipulation, but selection ala Mendel with genetic tests to determine efficacy.  We've discussed parents intentionally choosing mates for their presumed desirable traits, or in the case of sperm/egg donors, choosing genetic material for the same reasons.  This is no more difficult than selective breeding of plants in a garden.  But it is fraught with random chance and the possibility of error.  Combine this with genetic testing during pregnancy that allows for early detection of unintended combinations versus intended ones, and abortion based upon a negative result.  This is not the same as genetic recombination outside the womb, and considerably closer to being a possibility in real life, yes?  Or am I mistaken on the technicalities here?


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I am trying to examine the concept of abortion as an inalienable right of the mother versus possible situations where abortion might be considered both immoral and wrong even by those who support a woman's right to choose. I am trying to imagine if there is a point at which a person in favor of legal abortion would say _"Well, no, not if *that* is your reason."_ Otherwise, it would appear on the surface that one is trapped (and I am not trying to trap anyone, just noting it) into defending even eugenics when applied to abortion. And that seems an uncomfortable situation to find oneself in.
> 
> There is no 'ah-ha' or 'gotcha' here, I assure you. My thoughts were towards the concept of abortion as an absolute right as seen against various backdrops, including the concept of eugenics.



In that case, yes, I'm willing to defend a mother's right to abort, even if it means defending something resembling eugenics.  Not only is it a privacy law principle as explained in _Roe v. Wade_, but there's also the slippery slope concern.  If one is to right now change the rules because eugenics aren't a sufficient reason, how few leaps in logic would be needed to say "oh well you have enough money, you don't have a reason to abort because of economic hardships." 

The only scenario I can imagine that woudl induce a "Ok, come on now, really?" from me would be a woman who is constantly returning to a clinic for abortions.  I don't believe that's a frequent occurrence, but that's the only scenario that would really give me pause.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

FYI, I never heard of this movie until now, but I think I need to track it down...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy

I was reading about eugenics, which lead to the concept of dysgenics (that is, we're getting dumber because stupid people breed and intelligent people don't) and from that to this movie.  Looks interesting, sad, and funny.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would not presume to have your knowledge of genetics, but is it not true that we have identified some genetic markers that appear to convey predisposition both to and against certain forms of cancer and heart disease?



Yes, but they are complex multigenic clusters.  A single gene only has a small effect on the chances of developing heart disease.  Some specific forms of cancer (like BRCA2 with breast cancer) have a stronger gene predisposition associated with them, but again, in general, most single genes only change the chances by a small amount.



Bill Mattocks said:


> So you would say that there is a tipping point, but you're uncomfortable defining at what point the balance would change, then?



Yes, that sounds about right.  A definitive answer would require a lot more thought.



Bill Mattocks said:


> And in the case of abortion, if a woman's right to choose an abortion is absolute, would it not be up to her, whether or not a level of statistical comfort had been reached?  Could we as a society even enquire?



Yes, that's about right.  My comfort or discomfort for the reasons for abortion are separate from the question of legality.  Trying to outlaw these practices would not work IMO, for the reasons I detailed in my first post.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Actually, I was thinking of even more basic stuff.  Not genetic manipulation, but selection ala Mendel with genetic tests to determine efficacy.



That would work for one or two genes, which one parent had and one parent did not.  Let's say one parent had a nasty form of BRCA2, and one did not.  Your method would work very well for selecting an offspring that did not have that disease gene.

However, if you want a gene that neither parent has, or if you want to improve a complex trait like intelligence or physical ability, then most of the time the process I posted would be necessary.


----------



## cdunn (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And now we have the issue that has confronted the very topic of eugenics in general.  Benefit to whom?  And by what standards?  Who decides?  A very large, wealthy, and powerful society once decided the benefit to society was to have a human population without Jews in it.  Granted that this was government control of the eugenics concept, but it was also urged via propaganda on every German citizen, to bring forth pure-blooded Aryans to populate the world.  Towards the end, women were even urged to forgo marriage if they could only become rapidly and continuously pregnant with the desired sort of child...
> 
> It was, of course, the end of the eugenics movement as an acceptable and social movement; but when one is talking 'betterment of society', it of course takes us to 'by what definition'?



Thoughts I've thunken: The other end of things is that what eugenics as practiced in the early 20th century treads on is the right to self determination, precisely as an abortion ban treads on it. However, the attendant right of choice of reproduction belongs to the _individual_. A man and woman may choose to attempt to reproduce together, an individual may choose not to reproduce, but that choice must belong to them. That is the key, to me, right there. A woman may choose to abort because she doesn't care for what her potential child is likely to grow to be, but she _cannot be forced_ to abort by another.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Sep 2, 2011)

The shallow people will support eugenics, others will be forced to compete, those too poor will fall further behind.  Nothing seperates the poor from the rich like access to medical technology.  Sickening as it is it'll be a passing trend: 3 years pass every year now.  In another two years, 10 years will go by every year.  It won't take long until we can not only manipulate but directly customize the genes for traits that just don't exist in the human genome right now (beetle shell fingernails, bio-polymer foot-soles, silk glands etc).  Shortly after that they'll be able to write our own compact codes from scratch for self-assembling artificial cells.  Then _those _cells will become further miniaturized and sophisticated.  People will be replacing worn-out body parts in the same fashion as they "select" their "children".  Some people may become fully artificial.  The same technology will have been developed with a ubiquitous overlap with the development of artificial intelligence, indeed the blurry line between humans and machines will get blurrier.  This may change the nature of our understanding of words like life, consciousness and love.

I'm already more disconnected from the youth than I am from my grandparents.  I see the erosion of what we percieve as respect and...care, for lack of a better word.  The youth have already changed the nature of work ethic and punctuality won't matter as much as your connectivity in five years.  Like privacy, certain things we consider to be essential freedoms or things we consider right and good will fall below the radar of concern and fade into obscurity in favor of other concerns that haven't solidified yet.

I don't think it's too hard to draw a line between genetic "defects" and eye or hair color, skin pigmentation or predispositions to sports or music.  I do agree it'd be hard to police but not impossible, considering we'll likely lose most of our privacy anyway in the future (even in a democratic free market republic).


----------



## Nomad (Sep 2, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> FYI, I never heard of this movie until now, but I think I need to track it down...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy
> 
> I was reading about eugenics, which lead to the concept of dysgenics (that is, we're getting dumber because stupid people breed and intelligent people don't) and from that to this movie.  Looks interesting, sad, and funny.



IMHO, the concept of the movie was much better done than the execution.  It got really old and (not surprisingly I guess) really dumb about halfway through.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 2, 2011)

Em MacIntosh said:


> The shallow people will support eugenics, others will be forced to compete, those too poor will fall further behind.  Nothing seperates the poor from the rich like access to medical technology.



Now that I'm reading about it, the topic of the opposite of eugenics (dysgenics) argues that human beings are provably becoming less intelligent because the stupid breed more than the intelligent.  In this model, rather than the poor (or if you will, the uneducated/ignorant and therefor often poor) do indeed inherit the earth, and in fact bring human intellect down on average by destroying any genetic tendency towards higher intelligence.

In some ways, once might even consider it a survival trait; high intelligence is not a survival trait in our modern society.  Being stupid, uneducated, but able to somehow 'get along' and be able to breed unfettered seems to be the 'nature-preferred' model and will outcompete intelligent (and therefore often wealthy) people.  In the dysgenics model, the poor win because they're stupid and breed without restraint.  It's interesting to consider.  I could see such notions giving way to violent ideologies.


----------



## cdunn (Sep 2, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> That bright line turns out to be pretty murky, unfortunately.  Even when "brain waves" can be detected in the fetus, that is not consciousness, at least not yet.  Isolated neurons in a cell culture dish will display "brain waves" of their own, and no one thinks a handful of neurons firing in a plate is self-conscious.  When neurons begin firing in the fetus, the connections are still too simple to support consciousness.  At some point consciousness is definitely there, but no one can pinpoint a moment where it emerges.  My opinion?  It's going to be a slow continuum, like very slowly waking up from a deep sleep, and there is no single moment we will be able to point to that defines the beginning of consciousness.



This is true, but there's also going to be a point where we can no longer stand up and go, 'no, we know that nothing is going on here yet.' I would think that the complete negative is more important, ethically, than the fact that the transition is slow.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 2, 2011)

Rich Parsons said:


> http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/gattaca/


You beat me to it. This film is important because it shows one POSSIBLE future. Designer babies where they'll have all the attributes a parent can wish for and the child is a "welcomed *and* privileged member of society" where as all others are regulated down to lower caste positions in society and not allowed to rise above their station(s). After seeing the film (and repeated viewings) I knew that it is a society that we must fervently fight against having. It's just wrong on so many levels. 
In such a society a Stephen Hawking would never have been nor allowed the accolades and honors and respect his mind commands in today's society. 
As for terminating the pregnancy due to possible (or confirmed) birth-defect... no. Especially no if it doesn't endanger the life of the mother (or child). I am against it for spiritual reasons. My belief is that such children are born to test the compassion and amount of love, patience and understanding of the parents. Autistic children are probably those whose minds are so far advanced/developed beyond ours that we cannot begin to "catch up" to them. They didn't ask to be that way, nor are down-syndrome or cerebral palsy or any other type of birth-defect. I was born with a cleft palate... should I have been terminated?? In an Aryan dominated world, I probably would've been and Martial Talk would've been bereft of my posts... a sad thing indeed :wink2: . 
If a child is born to you and your mate that way then how much love do you really have inside you to care for it in the best way possible under your current circumstances. 

If the birth of the child would endanger the life of the mother and/or child then termination would be the best option IMO. Example, my present GF (previously married/divorced) gotten pregnant (unplanned) and she already has a weak heart and 40% lung capacity. Pregnancy takes a physical toll upon a woman's body to begin with... provided she's reasonably healthy to begin with. With her, after dozens of tests, it was determined that neither she nor the baby would survive by the end of the 2nd term. So the pregnancy was terminated. It was hard on her because she was loving being pregnant. Yet she also wanted to survive. Now she has a IUD to protect her in the future. 
Another example... a friend and his wife had 4 healthy strong boys and were pleased with the 5th pregnancy. Both aren't poor but do live marginally enough to keep the 4 boys comfortable, well fed and etc. One is now a newly recruited Marine. The 5th however was tested in the womb and found to be short a chromosome and thus was born as a Down Syndrome child. The couple were offered termination but decided to keep it anyway in spite of pending medical bills and the child was born a week premature, which started the monstrous medical bills they now have to start paying off (insurance not withstanding). It imposed a financial hardship on the already struggling family but they're happy and proud of their child as much as they are with their 4 other "normal" children. Their personal beliefs are that the child is fortunate to not understand the evils in this world, that it would be relatively innocent throughout it's life. They also realize that the child may never grow old or have it's own. It's retardation is too severe to be considered "high-functioning" and will have to be cared for throughout it's life. Both parents are fine with that. It's a good child and much loved. How many of his kind are sent to boarding schools 9-10 months out of the year? How many are simply abandoned at orphanages or adoption agencies or centers? 
Having a child specially tailored is selfish, egotistical and just plain mean-hearted IMO. Take what life gives you and make the best of it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

MA-Caver said:


> If a child is born to you and your mate that way then how much love do you really have inside you to care for it in the best way possible under your current circumstances.



Have you ever raised a child with serious birth defects or congenital diseases, or known someone who has?  It's easy for you to say that someone should raise a child no matter what, but raising some children takes a monstrous toll on their family, emotional, physical and financial.  Sometimes such children die young and in pain anyways.  I wouldn't make such a blanket judgment, not when the cost to _someone else_ is so high.  It is their decision to make, they really shouldn't be judged for it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 2, 2011)

i suppose someone would accuse me of being a facist if i said that people should be implanted with a BC device and have to pass an IQ test to get it removed after they are old enough.....


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i suppose someone would accuse me of being a facist if i said that people should be implanted with a BC device and have to pass an IQ test to get it removed after they are old enough.....



Someone certainly would...


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 2, 2011)

It is ghosted with fascism to suggest such a thing but I'm not sure it wouldn't be a good idea in the long run.  Maybe not an IQ test in the simplest of meanings that we are now familiar with but certainly some measure to stop the decline of the species.  For it is true, the ignorant/poverty-stricken proliferate and the educated/prosperous fade away - not an outcome to welcome, no matter how egalitarian it is.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 2, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> It is ghosted with fascism to suggest such a thing but I'm not sure it wouldn't be a good idea in the long run.  Maybe not an IQ test in the simplest of meanings that we are now familiar with but certainly some measure to stop the decline of the species.



Same problems as always.  Who decides what constitutes "decline"?  Who decides who the undesirables are and who keeps them from breeding?  Using what means?  Humanity is not competent to exercise such power, which is why fundamental human rights are so important.  If we can only stop the "decline" by exercising tyranny, then we don't deserve to survive.




Sukerkin said:


> For it is true, the ignorant/poverty-stricken proliferate and the educated/prosperous fade away - not an outcome to welcome, no matter how egalitarian it is.



Birth rates decline as living standards increase.  As living standards are increasing even in the Third World, the population is expected to level off and maintain later in this century.  I'm not sure how anyone could see this as anything but a good thing.  Our planet has a finite capacity, which technology can ameliorate but only until a certain degree.  If we all want to live like those of us in the First World, the population must stabilize.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 2, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i suppose someone would accuse me of being a facist if i said that people should be implanted with a BC device and have to pass an IQ test to get it removed after they are old enough.....



Aside from the fact that doing so pretty much takes a flying leap over the privacy concerns that the abortion compromise is based on......that's idea's just screwed up to begin with.  Nevermind the question of which side of the child-making process gets the BC device automatically installed at birth.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 2, 2011)

oh, dont get me wrong, i dont think the idea is legal, viable, or advisable

I just think there might be a good side to it.....and if you met some of the reatrds that give birth, that WE ALL SUPPORT with our tax dollars, you might re-think it


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Have you ever raised a child with serious birth defects or congenital diseases, or known someone who has?  It's easy for you to say that someone should raise a child no matter what, but raising some children takes a monstrous toll on their family, emotional, physical and financial.  Sometimes such children die young and in pain anyways.  I wouldn't make such a blanket judgment, not when the cost to _someone else_ is so high.  It is their decision to make, they really shouldn't be judged for it.


I say this gently Empty Hands... go back to my post and pick up where I talked about "Another example:" and thus I DO know what this family went through and not by hear-say or was "told"... they're very good friends of mine that I've known for years ... likewise I've other friends who have disabled children and have on occasion been a nanny to them... so umm... yeah I think I DO happen to have a very good idea of what a family goes through, after knowing various families throughout my life. No blanket statement I make... I have also seen children rejected simply because they were DEAF. I've known families to adopt inner-city children because their crack-smoking mommas didn't want them anymore and the kids have either mild or severe defects depending upon how much of that crap their worthless, don't give a crap except for the dope mommas smoked/used during pregnancy. 
So please... I may post a lot of tongue in cheek stuff... but when it comes to kids and the love that they so desperately need and sadly how thousands of them don't get it, I'll be serious as a heart attack and share my experiences/observations/thoughts/feelings on the matter. 
:asian:


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I don't disagree that this will and even has happened, but I respectfully think you're sidestepping the question. Presume the parents have selected as best they can for whatever eugenic properties they wish; a child that matches the couch, or one with a big brain or an eventual height of over six feet tall. Then, prenatal genetic testing tells them that despite their best efforts, this is not to be with this particular fetus. How now?



To be honest I don't know, being Jewish means that our community here at least tests for a condition called Tay-Sachs that is predominently carried by people who are genetically Jewish. We've chosen, most of us, to be tested to see if we carry that gene so that we can decide whether to have children or not. Some parents chose not to test nor do they test the foetus, a child with Tay-Sachs will die before they are four usually after suffering a lot. I suppose the answer is that it is down to the individual, I can't answer for anyone else.
As for chosing eye colour , hair etc there are always going to be selfish stupid people. Chosing the sex of your child could be important though as some conditions are gender specific.
One thing though the sheer amount of posts since your first I think shows that people will discuss this issue even if they don't agree! Discussions can only be good though, for me it helps me think about my own position, I can read and say, oh no don't agree with that or yes, exactly right or quite often..ah I didn't think of that! Nice one Bill!


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 3, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Same problems as always.  Who decides what constitutes "decline"?  Who decides who the undesirables are and who keeps them from breeding?


 
I do of course - silly person to ask such a question! 



Empty Hands said:


> Humanity is not competent to exercise such power, which is why fundamental human rights are so important.  If we can only stop the "decline" by exercising tyranny, then we don't deserve to survive.



Speak for yourself, Bio-boy!  I'm a Liberal Fascist AND a historian AND an economist and so am perfectly placed to make such decisions {double }.



Empty Hands said:


> Birth rates decline as living standards increase.  As living standards are increasing even in the Third World, the population is expected to level off and maintain later in this century.  I'm not sure how anyone could see this as anything but a good thing.  Our planet has a finite capacity, which technology can ameliorate but only until a certain degree.  If we all want to live like those of us in the First World, the population must stabilize.



More seriously, absolutely.  That is why it is important in the long term to aim for stable populations, living in non-boom-and-bust economies, fed by sustainable agriculture.  Otherwise we're heading down the same road as the Maya and the Roman's.


----------



## Jenna (Sep 3, 2011)

I think congratulations to you all for discussing some uncomfortable issues with a good degree of objectivity, morality and philosophy.  

I think though that we are able to take dispassionate stances in theoretical matters of organised programmes of eugenics only because we ourselves feel that we / our loved ones / our potential progeny etc. would "meet the cut" as it were, whether that be in terms of physical integrity, genetic disposition or bizarrely, IQ.

There is no other way to see it.  This is dangerous ideology.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 3, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I think congratulations to you all for discussing some uncomfortable issues with a good degree of objectivity, morality and philosophy.
> 
> I think though that we are able to take dispassionate stances in theoretical matters of organised programmes of eugenics only because we ourselves feel that we / our loved ones / our potential progeny etc. would "meet the cut" as it were, whether that be in terms of physical integrity, genetic disposition or bizarrely, IQ.
> 
> There is no other way to see it. *This is dangerous ideology*.



It is indeed. With the best will in the world and with others well-being at the forefront of our minds we can still be led into doing something that is indefensable.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 3, 2011)

no one ever talks about the "fundamental human right" of a baby to be born without the mother killing it cuz she doesnt want to lose her figure, or she was too stupid to figure out her birth control....


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 3, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> no one ever talks about the "fundamental human right" of a baby to be born without the mother killing it cuz she doesnt want to lose her figure, or she was too stupid to figure out her birth control....



Actually, we have.  This is just as disgusting a reason as eugenics to have an abortion.  However, as I and others have said, a pregnant woman's rights under _Roe v. Wade_ extend up to a certain point and do not change based on her motivation.  It's her _right_.  

I'm sorry you don't agree with the response, but it is being addressed.


----------



## Twin Fist (Sep 4, 2011)

why is there a "right" to murder a baby right up to the minutes BEFORE it is born?

abort an 8 week fetus, distastefull, but whatever

abort a 28 week BABY, thats another thing all together

for that matter, why is it ok to murder a BABY but not to execute a murderer?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2011)

In my reading on this subject, I have discovered that there are groups that argue for the right, not of any unborn child (or fetus if you prefer) to survive, but of specific unborn children; for example, those with Down Syndrome.  It sounds daft to me, but apparently there are those who feel that being born with Down Syndrome is a 'class' of people who are being systematically removed from the population through selective abortion.  I had no idea, really.

Let me take that and propose a thought experiment.  Let us say (I realize it's not true, but please play along) that a genetic component to homosexuality was discovered.  A simple prenatal test can determine whether or not a child will be born with a predisposition to homosexuality.  Now, given this, is it OK for a family (or a woman) to choose not to give birth to a child who will most likely grow to become a homosexual person?  What if the end result is a world without homosexuals?  I am not proposing this thought experiment out of any antipathy towards homosexuals, nor do I believe that such a thing is possible; the point here is to place an immovable object in front of an irresistible force so that we can examine (mentally) what the outcome might be.  Your thoughts?


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In my reading on this subject, I have discovered that there are groups that argue for the right, not of any unborn child (or fetus if you prefer) to survive, but of specific unborn children; for example, those with Down Syndrome. It sounds daft to me, but apparently there are those who feel that being born with Down Syndrome is a 'class' of people who are being systematically removed from the population through selective abortion. I had no idea, really.
> 
> Let me take that and propose a thought experiment. Let us say (I realize it's not true, but please play along) that a genetic component to homosexuality was discovered. A simple prenatal test can determine whether or not a child will be born with a predisposition to homosexuality. Now, given this, is it OK for a family (or a woman) to choose not to give birth to a child who will most likely grow to become a homosexual person? What if the end result is a world without homosexuals? I am not proposing this thought experiment out of any antipathy towards homosexuals, nor do I believe that such a thing is possible; the point here is to place an immovable object in front of an irresistible force so that we can examine (mentally) what the outcome might be. Your thoughts?




There are various degrees of Downs Syndrome with the worse entailing heart and other medical conditions that make living terribly difficult for the child.
Most parents I think are willing to take their children 'as they come', loving them whatever but there has always been some who for their own selfish reasons will not accept what nature sends, before prenatal tests these parents have sent their unacceptable children away or even killed them as the Trojans did when they left handicapped and weakling children exposed on mountains. Female babies in some countries are still killed, a boy child wouldn't even if a test showed they were liable to be gay, they'd simply be taught not to show their true nature thus causing untold damage to them.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Most parents I think are willing to take their children 'as they come', loving them whatever but there has always been some who for their own selfish reasons will not accept what nature sends, before prenatal tests these parents have sent their unacceptable children away or even killed them as the Trojans did when they left handicapped and weakling children exposed on mountains. Female babies in some countries are still killed, a boy child wouldn't even if a test showed they were liable to be gay, they'd simply be taught not to show their true nature thus causing untold damage to them.



I think you may be engaging in wishful thinking.  Since prenatal testing for Down Syndrome began, the incidence of children born with it has plunged.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Abortion_rates



> A 2002 literature review of elective abortion rates found that 91&#8211;93% of pregnancies in the United Kingdom and Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome were terminated.[51] Data from the National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register in the United Kingdom indicates that from 1989 to 2006 the proportion of women choosing to terminate a pregnancy following prenatal diagnosis of Down Syndrome has remained constant at around 92%.[52][53]



It would appear that in reality, the overwhelming majority of parents who become aware that their child will be born with Down Syndrome choose to abort.  The mental exercise I propose is whether or not it would be OK for parents to make similar decisions regarding a child being born with a predisposition to be gay.  I think supposing that parents would not care because they don't care or would simply teach their children to hide their nature is a bit of a stretch; because clearly they do not do so with regard to children with Down Syndrome.  If parents detect Down Syndrome in unborn children, they overwhelmingly choose to abort.  So what would they do if they could detect homosexuality?  And would it be OK?


----------



## Jenna (Sep 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In my reading on this subject, I have discovered that there are groups that argue for the right, not of any unborn child (or fetus if you prefer) to survive, but of specific unborn children; for example, those with Down Syndrome.  It sounds daft to me, but apparently there are those who feel that being born with Down Syndrome is a 'class' of people who are being systematically removed from the population through selective abortion.  I had no idea, really.
> 
> Let me take that and propose a thought experiment.  Let us say (I realize it's not true, but please play along) that a genetic component to homosexuality was discovered.  A simple prenatal test can determine whether or not a child will be born with a predisposition to homosexuality.  Now, given this, is it OK for a family (or a woman) to choose not to give birth to a child who will most likely grow to become a homosexual person?  What if the end result is a world without homosexuals?  I am not proposing this thought experiment out of any antipathy towards homosexuals, nor do I believe that such a thing is possible; the point here is to place an immovable object in front of an irresistible force so that we can examine (mentally) what the outcome might be.  Your thoughts?


These are very interesting questions.  I think that they raise of themselves many more questions which I think would also necessarily need to be addressed to form any cohesive answer, for example, do we value diversity of genetic character in society in its widest possible definition, or does that diversity have limits which we should strive not to exceed?

This also routes in questions of which moral theory we subscribe (or SHOULD subscribe to) - is it ethically correct or even sanctionable to allow us to act in our own self-interest at its most capricious (I do not want a child who is homosexual is hardly the most logical and objective position).  Should we be attempting to maximise the overall good (utilitarianism)?  Of course, in this particular example, were Utilitarianism prescribed, I think we need to become very introspective that we are not, by taking such abortive actions (were they possible) suggesting that a homosexual man or woman is of lesser value than they would be were they heterosexual. I think this entire area of discussion is somewhat fraught with the dangers of hubris on all our parts (as a society that would condone genetic dabbling for nonsense reasons).

In the interest of brevity, I would give only a personal opinion and suggest that these notions veer terribly close to Man playing God, only with the addition of ego and short-term self-interest thrown in for bad measure.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> These are very interesting questions.  I think that they raise of themselves many more questions which I think would also necessarily need to be addressed to form any cohesive answer, for example, do we value diversity of genetic character in society in its widest possible definition, or does that diversity have limits which we should strive not to exceed?
> 
> This also routes in questions of which moral theory we subscribe (or SHOULD subscribe to) - is it ethically correct or even sanctionable to allow us to act in our own self-interest at its most capricious (I do not want a child who is homosexual is hardly the most logical and objective position).  Should we be attempting to maximise the overall good (utilitarianism)?  Of course, in this particular example, were Utilitarianism prescribed, I think we need to become very introspective that we are not, by taking such abortive actions (were they possible) suggesting that a homosexual man or woman is of lesser value than they would be were they heterosexual. I think this entire area of discussion is somewhat fraught with the dangers of hubris on all our parts (as a society that would condone genetic dabbling for nonsense reasons).
> 
> In the interest of brevity, I would give only a personal opinion and suggest that these notions veer terribly close to Man playing God, only with the addition of ego and short-term self-interest thrown in for bad measure.



I like your answers, and yes, I agree about the questions it raises.  It also creates some interesting paradoxes.  We talk about the justification of abortion based on the right to privacy; typically a Constitutional issue that normally a conservative would defend, but not with regard to abortion.  Many who reject notions of God at all with regard to human interaction (God in government and law, God in morality, etc) will still look to the notion of 'playing God' as a bad thing morally, as if there were a God or any reason not to play one ourselves.  In other words, if one is an atheist or at the very least against religion having any impact on public policy, how can they defend anything other than doing just as we please with regard to abortion rights, despite any potential negative outcome?  And when many who champion the rights of the disabled also champion the right of a woman to abort a child simply because it will be born with a disability...is there no irony there?  In the end, it seems that the very notion of abortion has become a taboo discussion point (although everyone has been very respectful and I sincerely appreciate it in this thread) and the ironies and contradictions largely ignored.  If it is OK to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome, why NOT abort a child who will be born homosexual?  A disability can come in many forms, from being mentally disabled to being discriminated against and having a very difficult life (depending on when and where and into what circumstances a homosexual child is born).  So if 'disability' is a moral reason for abortion, then what is disability?


----------



## Jenna (Sep 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I like your answers, and yes, I agree about the questions it raises.  It also creates some interesting paradoxes.  We talk about the justification of abortion based on the right to privacy; typically a Constitutional issue that normally a conservative would defend, but not with regard to abortion.  Many who reject notions of God at all with regard to human interaction (God in government and law, God in morality, etc) will still look to the notion of 'playing God' as a bad thing morally, as if there were a God or any reason not to play one ourselves.  In other words, if one is an atheist or at the very least against religion having any impact on public policy, how can they defend anything other than doing just as we please with regard to abortion rights, despite any potential negative outcome?  And when many who champion the rights of the disabled also champion the right of a woman to abort a child simply because it will be born with a disability...is there no irony there?  In the end, it seems that the very notion of abortion has become a taboo discussion point (although everyone has been very respectful and I sincerely appreciate it in this thread) and the ironies and contradictions largely ignored.  If it is OK to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome, why NOT abort a child who will be born homosexual?  A disability can come in many forms, from being mentally disabled to being discriminated against and having a very difficult life (depending on when and where and into what circumstances a homosexual child is born).  So if 'disability' is a moral reason for abortion, then what is disability?


I think acting as God I would use that in an allegorical sense rather than referencing God as we believers believe it.  By that I mean, all of us, theists or not, have roughly corresponding notions of the omniscience of God (irrespective of whether we believe in God or not). So what I really mean is that to unravel the complexities of genetic filtering and selection (especially cherry-picking single traits without perhaps full knowledge of the long-term impacts to humanity's genetic diversity) is to act as though we have that omniscience that we plainly do not.

As you mention the paradoxes, I think that is why your question is so interesting to me personally as I would (broadly) condone the right to choose to abort or -where available- to choose a "normal" geneset for my child instead of "what I am given".  Nevertheless, the paradox for me is that though I (broadly) agree with these notions, I actually loathe being part of a society that would condone them.

Likewise, I would never want to remove -or let us not beat about the bush- _destroy _a section of humanity, even if I myself might be partly responsible for that by choosing to abort on the basis of genetic certainties - in the case of Down Syndrome. 

I look at it like this: I do not want to be responsible for any form of genocide - and I do not think that is too strong a word.  I do not believe you or any other right-thinking pragmatic person would either.  Therfore, what would be best? Well, I would suggest a kind of apportioning of those genetic abnormalities (I hate that word) throughout the entire populus.  Then again - depending upon your worldview - is that not what God / random chance does already?

Challenging questions.  Well done for asking them.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 4, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I think you may be engaging in wishful thinking. Since prenatal testing for Down Syndrome began, the incidence of children born with it has plunged.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#Abortion_rates
> 
> ...



As I said though Downs Syndrome comes in varying degrees, it's not just a case of 'oh we don't fancy having a kid with Downs', it would be so inconvenient', often parents reluctantly choose abortion because of the severity of the handicap. Quite honestly I don't feel I can judge parents who have had to take a heartbreaking decision like this. The severe symptoms of Downs can include dementia, heart, intestinal, hearing, and eye problems. While we are used to seeing high functioning Downs Syndrome people we don't see the deaf, blind physically handicapped suffering dementia in their early years. While not every one may agree,not bringing a severely handicapped child into the world is a choice some parents think is the more merciful though not less traumatic. It's not necessarily done for convenience. 

I have just been reading about the thousands of baby girls literally thrown on rubbish heaps in Pakistan, they are put in black plasitic rubbish bags and thrown on the tip, mostly they die sometimes they are found and rescued. To be honest that, as it is real and happening now, worries me far more than a non existant test for homosexuality which I will worry about when it happens.


In many countries the birth of a son is hugely important far more so than in the States or most parts of Europe and certainly they would not care if the baby had signs it could be gay. Perhaps though in countries where the law is draconian, where the penalty for being gay is torture and death ( as in Zimbabwe) perhaps parents may think twice about bringing a child into the world to suffer later on.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 4, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Well, I would suggest a kind of apportioning of those genetic abnormalities (I hate that word) throughout the entire populus.  Then again - depending upon your worldview - is that not what God / random chance does already?



I could well imagine a Philip K. Dick / Dystopian SF novel based on a worldview theory of exactly that.  Imagine being a parent who 'lost the lottery' and had to give birth to a child with a genetic difference guaranteed to cause health and other problems, under the rubric of mandatory genetic diversity.  At least with God (or random chance), one does not have a government to blame.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 4, 2011)

I don't agree with using abortion for eugenics or eugenics for abortions. but whenever ya have something there will always be those who use it for all the wrong things. A good example of this is freedom of speech.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 6, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> why is there a "right" to murder a baby right up to the minutes BEFORE it is born?
> 
> abort an 8 week fetus, distastefull, but whatever
> 
> ...



Perhaps I'm not remembering _Roe v. Wade_ correctly, but from my understanding, there's no right to abort a birth minutes beforehand.  It may occur in certain situations where someone's life is at stake, but my memory of _Roe v. Wade_ is that through the first trimester (3 months, or 12 weeks), a woman has an unabridged right to abort; through the second trimester (3-6 months, or 12-24 weeks), the government has limited ability to prevent an abortion in the name of the stat's interest in seeing the birth come to fruition, and through the third trimester (6-9 months, or 24-36 weeks), the government can pretty much prevent abortion altogether.   That was the compromise as I remember it; nowhere does that include pulling the plug moments before birth.  

It's interesting that you acknowledge that an 8-week old fetus isn't a "baby" for abortion purposes; many on the right would say that's too permissive and that life begins at conception.  The whole "where life begins" is kinda the million-dollar question and has been for a while.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In other words, if one is an atheist or at the very least against religion having any impact on public policy, how can they defend anything other than doing just as we please with regard to abortion rights, despite any potential negative outcome?



Do you truly not understand, or is this question rhetorical?  The great majority of atheists or the irreligious subscribe to a system of morality of some kind.  Not all atheists or irreligious, or maybe even most, are pro-choice.  An atheist could come to the conclusion that abortion is murder without the input of religious law, or an atheist could decide that abortion was morally wrong, but that the consequences of outlawing it are worse.  In fact, I know such people, and they seem to be able to come to their conclusions without reference to religion.  In fact, there are a great many ethical and moral systems that make no reference to the Divine.  I see no reason why atheism mandates a belief in unfettered abortion rights.

Some atheists, in fact, have come to the conclusion that life is more precious than some of the religious treat it.  The atheist generally believes that this is the only life we get.  The religious generally believes that this life is a prelude to the real life to come.  It's not hard to see how the atheist might value life more given those priors.

The conclusion that atheists must believe in the meaninglessness of life or that no rules, ethics or morality apply is simply a strawman, belied by extensive real world examples.



Bill Mattocks said:


> And when many who champion the rights of the disabled also champion the right of a woman to abort a child simply because it will be born with a disability...is there no irony there?



Not really.  The two positions involve very different moral principles.

As for your hypothetical about using abortion to select against homosexuality, yes I do believe it would be wrong.  And I also believe it would not be acceptable to try to outlaw it, for the reasons I explained in my first post.

There really doesn't seem to be much disagreement on this thread.  Most of the pro-choice that have answered believe that abortion for the reasons you describe would be wrong, but that trying to outlaw it would not work for the reasons I describe.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 6, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The conclusion that atheists must believe in the meaninglessness of life or that no rules, ethics or morality apply is simply a strawman, belied by extensive real world examples.



In short, atheist does not mean existentialist, nor hedonist for that matter.


----------



## Monroe (Sep 14, 2011)

In Toronto we have Asian neighbourhoods where boys out number girls. It's gotten to the point when pregnant women ask for the gender early in the pregnancy, ultrasound tech's won't tell you. On my old street, we were the only white family. There was one black family and the rest were Indian. At the playground it was obvious that there were more boys than girls. My daughter's JK had 12 boys and 4 girls. That's not normal. I've read that they cross the border into the US for ultrasounds to find out the gender early and that they same thing is happening in Vancouver. 

I like that there are no laws controlling abortion in Canada. It does sadden me that women are aborting female offspring. It speaks volumes to me about how much they value themselves as a gender.


----------



## Carol (Sep 14, 2011)

Monroe said:


> It does sadden me that women are aborting female offspring. It speaks volumes to me about how much they value themselves as a gender.



Uhhh...Okay...


----------



## Monroe (Sep 14, 2011)

Carol said:


> Uhhh...Okay...



They're going to great lengths to find out the gender and aborting anything female. You think they value women?


----------



## granfire (Sep 14, 2011)

Monroe said:


> They're going to great lengths to find out the gender and aborting anything female. You think they value women?


Difficult to say.

But as this continues and if they are trying to impose traditional values on their sons, like marrying an Indian girl, they will soon find a rapidly increased value in the female as the pickins are slim....
(then again, I suppose you can always import...but back home the same is happening)


On the other hand, I have read that in some areas the natural birth rate is closing in on 1 male to 2 females....and no, no link, it was something I heard a few years back in passing.....


----------



## Monroe (Sep 14, 2011)

granfire said:


> Difficult to say.
> 
> But as this continues and if they are trying to impose traditional values on their sons, like marrying an Indian girl, they will soon find a rapidly increased value in the female as the pickins are slim....
> (then again, I suppose you can always import...but back home the same is happening)
> ...



Hmm... maybe it will have zero impact on male/female ratio's in the long term. I wonder why the natural birth rate would move to 1 male  to 2 females.


----------



## granfire (Sep 14, 2011)

Monroe said:


> Hmm... maybe it will have zero impact on male/female ratio's in the long term. I wonder why the natural birth rate would move to 1 male  to 2 females.


The assumption was environmental toxins.
I think the population they discovered that in was a rather isolated group.
Alas, it's been a while since I heard about that...

http://classic.the-scientist.com/news/display/18824/
not sure if that was it, but it seems to be close.


----------

