Abortion for boutique eugenics

Introduction

The following is an editorial written by one or more Issuepedia contributors. The first section is the editorial itself, written in an attempt to be as persuasive as possible regarding its point-of-view. Comments, rebuttals, and additional information are in subsequent sections.

This editorial originally appeared on the abortion issue page.

Editorial

Currently there is an in utero test for Down syndrome. That testing, combined with abortion-on-demand, has made people with Down syndrome an endangered population. By some estimates, 90 percent of these people – who, if allowed to live, can live happy and healthy lives – are aborted. What is to stop parents from aborting children who are are a specific sex? As science progresses, there are more and more tests that can be performed in utero. What is the next issue what will provoke abortions? Hair color? Political affiliation?

The next issue appears to be that doctors want to "screen out" all male embryos that may contract autism due to family history. [1]

Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in an attempt to limit the number of "morons" in the population. Sanger wrote "Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying... demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism.” in her book, The Pivot of Civilization (page 113). She was on record as stating that sterilization or birth prevention was necessary for those that she felt were unfit, stating “it is a vicious cycle; ignorance breeds poverty and poverty breeds ignorance. There is only one cure for both, and that is to stop breeding these things. Stop bringing to birth, children whose inheritance cannot be one of health or intelligence. Stop bringing into the world children whose parents cannot provide for them.”

Since sterilization without consent is illegal, and would be hard if not possible to get people to consent to, she went the other route, killing the unborn children while still in the womb.

Responses

needs to address new points added 2007-08-16

• Any tool can be misused: just because a tool can be used for bad things does not mean that it should be outlawed for all uses. You have to weigh the costs and benefits. If a given tool is found to be prone to a particular misuse, then the issue to be addressed is how to prevent that specific misuse without losing the overall benefits of the tool.
• As long as it is the parents making this decision, it is not clear what the harm of this particular outcome would be.
• Just because someone with a screenable condition could live a happy and healthy life doesn't mean that they will, nor does it mean that they might not actually prefer to be aborted so the family can start over and try again (and give birth to a kid who might have a much happier, more fulfilling life). We can't know for sure, because we can't ask them (especially the ones who are born unable to communicate, or born with insufficient mental capacity to be able to grasp the question). We have to use our best judgment; you can't not decide in these cases.