Abortion & Eugenics

[Bill Mattocks]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

unless you are dead social impact always affects society.

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