Abortion & Eugenics

[Bill Mattocks]

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 91–93% 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]

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]

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]

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]

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





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?

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Uhhh...Okay...

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

 

[granfire]

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]

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.....

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]

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.