Eugenics and a woman's right to 'choose'.

[denem]

It's common knowledge that in a third of the world (India & China), parents abort female fetuses because they want sons. Patriarchy places a premium on males. In today's LBN, Sweden has declared this practice legal. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3873199&mesg_id=3873199

On BBC World Service Radio, I have heard a number of Indian commentators emphasize the new importance of 'America's First Family'. The most powerful man in the world is satisfied with two daughters? That's not how it's done in India.

Where do you stand on this? Suppose tests during pregnancy could not only determine sex, but also sexual orientation - some discovery in the future of a set of genes that would make it more likely that a child will be homosexual?

I could imagine some evangelicals putting aside their condemnation of abortion, in this case. We choose not to have a homosexual in the family.

What do we mean by the right to 'choose'?

[Fresh_Start]

1. I don't believe Choice

is the right to pick your designer baby.

[nomorenomore08]

3. But if abortion is to be legal, in general, then how can it be disallowed for specific reasons?

:shrug:

[Fresh_Start]

4. Abortion shouldn't be a fashion choice

I want a baby that looks like me with blonde hair and blue eyes.
Dimples and long eyelashes would be a great plus. And no size 17 feet either.

It just shouldn't be.

How you prevent it, I don't know. But the idea disgusts me.

[nomorenomore08]

16. Ethically speaking, I more or less agree with you.

But legally speaking, there's nothing that can be done without unfairly restricting reproductive choice.

[enlightenment]

2. Just that. Choice.

The argument you seem to be advancing hinges on the outcome - the successful live birth of a fetus. It's really no different than the argument that right-to-lifers make every day. (Adding here that I recognize your position may be completely philosophical and only serving to advance the discussion).

Replace gender/orientation with birth defect/retardation/genius. Where does that argument end? At what point do we say, well, no - you can't abort THAT fetus?

It doesn't matter what the state of the embryo/fetus is . . . it doesn't have personhood until it pops the hatch and fills its lungs with air.

[WeDidIt]

5. I trust women to make the right choice

end of discussion.

[denem]

6. Then be glad you're not in India or China.

[The Straight Story]

7. Choice: Where to work, where to smoke, when to have a child, paper or plastic

etc and so on.

When we start limiting choice we start down the path of telling others how to live their lives.

Not something I want to do, but it is something others seem to have a deep seated desire to do.

Question is why?

[denem]

10. Then lets go full bore with Eugenic choices?

Choose something as close to the Superman as envisaged in the 1930's when the technology becomes available?

[The Straight Story]

11. Well, from what I gather

Either you are for choice or against it.

Or is that too close minded?

[denem]

12. I don't know. 'Alpha' designer babies might be something people will go for/

Whether we want to go down that road as a society is an issue wider than choice. And it's the same debate that was being aired in the 1930 by those for and against Eugenics.

[KakistocracyHater]

8. To choose when to become pregnant & to 'space them out'

to make a conscious choice of accepting the role & price of being a parent. In a way-to live differently than the rest of the animal kingdom.

[aquart]

9. In America, we like the idea of one of each.

A family with five boys might be trying to finally have a daughter. A family with four daughters may be working hopefully toward a son.

The point of the abortion option was to keep a mother from dying at thirty-five after delivering fourteen live births.

And to keep a mother from the despair of starvation because she could not adequately feed all her children.

We tend to think of abortion as a middle class convenience. It was meant to save lives. Lives like my mother's favorite cousin, Bessie, who died from "a fall down the stairs" which was the euphemism for a botched abortion.

[Xithras]

13. What you or I believe, what we condemn or support, is irrelevant.

The only choice that matters is the one made by the woman with the womb.

And yes, that means that she has a right to abort a child if it's too tall, short, dark, light, gay, straight, smart, not-so-smart, diseased, or whatever other reason comes to her mind. Heck, she can abort it for the fun of it, if that's her choice.

Whether you or I approve or disapprove doesn't matter. What matters is that no society has the right to dictate that a woman remain pregnant when she does not want to be. No society has a right to require any woman to carry and bear a child she does not want to keep.

Choice is choice. As far as I'm concerned, this is no different than the issue of KKKers holding marches. Freedom is great, in that freedom gives us the ability to live our lives as we choose. The flipside of freedom is that others have the right to live their lives as THEY choose, whether or not we find their choices abhorrent. Just as we must allow reich-wingers to have their free speech in exchange for us having ours, we must let short-sighted women abort their babies for stupid reasons to protect the rights of all of the women wanting abortions for more conventional reasons. Once society starts down a path of dictating reasons that are, and aren't, permissible for abortions, you've all but acceded the fight to those who will eventually ban it.

Either you believe in freedom of choice, or you don't.

[bluethruandthru]

18. Two thumbs up!

Choice is choice.

[MellowDem]

31. Too black and white

Too "with us or against us". Women don't have complete freedom of choice, so you can't pretend like they do. As of right now, they can only abort legally under certain circumstances and within a certain time frame. So we have already established that women do not have complete freedom of choice when it comes to the fetus. Given that this is the case in our society, it is quite appropriate to discuss things such as eugenics and whether a mother has a right to practice it.

There is no such thing as complete freedom of speech, and the same goes for choice. The big question that hounds abortion is the idea that there is another life at stake besides the mother, that the fetus has rights of its own in a way. That's the big difference between this argument about rights and others. It's why the discussion is always so controversial. One side is arguing about the issue just as a privacy issue while the other side is arguing about it just as an ethics issue. Realizing that it is both is the only way to have fruitful discussion.

[Xithras]

35. You want us to accede rights to the fetus? Really?

A fetus is not a person until it has the ability to survive on its own, and until that point is has no "rights". It certainly doesn't have the right to require that another person support it (we have a name for a legal system that requires one person to materially support another person without compensation...slavery).

We place restrictions on late term abortions simply because the fetus has typically developed into a baby by that point and is capable of surviving outside of the womb. The woman, in that instance, has the option of removing the unwanted pregnancy without killing it, so society has restricted her right to do so. Honestly, I don't have a problem with that. The choice to end the pregnancy still exists, only the method to accomplish the termination has changed.

And yes, this is a very black and white issue. I have an honest question for you. What is the difference, in the end, between a woman who terminates simply because she doesn't want to be pregnant, and a woman who terminates a male pregnancy because she wants a daughter? Most of the people objecting here would have no problem with the woman terminating that same male pregnancy as simple birth control, but think it's the end of the world if we let her do it because of its sex. Either way, the same baby gets aborted. The reality here is that people are objecting to her thoughts and opinion, not her behavior. I simply don't see how ANY "liberal" can sit here on a liberal messageboard and seriously contemplate restricting behavior based on the opinions of those practicing it. Do we really want a society where Citizen X can excercise a right, but Citizen Y cannot exercise that same right simply because they hold a moral view we disagree with? Yes, this IS a black and white issue, and quite frankly your position scares the living fuck out of me. You're not talking about restricting based on medical differences between various phases of pregnancy, you're talking about restricting based on nothing more than someones attitude.

Black and white. Pick a side.

[MellowDem]

38. I never said any opinion of my own concerning abortion...

I'm stating how it is in society. The idea is that there are two issues, the right of privacy and the rights of the fetus. You yourself admit to this, that we as a society have established a certain time when the fetus is deemed viable and worthy of rights.

But to even consider this issue in a broader sense, the only reason abortion is legal in this country is because it is better for society as a whole. If abortion was destructive to society, it would be restricted. It already is restricted in cases that are deemed unethical by our laws, and hence, "bad for society". The difference, as you wonder, between a woman aborting because of an unwanted pregnancy and a woman aborting because of the gender is the potential positive or negative impact on a society. If moms abort a pregnancy they do not wish to have, that is generally a net positive for society. But if moms abort a pregnancy because of a certain gender, that can have a net negative effect on society, as we saw in China. This of course assumes that people begin aborting for gender on a wide scale, but it has been done, and we have seen the negative impact it can have on society. Considering that most societies are still very patriarchal, that scares the heck out of me personally. And while the idea of restricting abortion based on a woman's own preferences for gender scares the heck out of you, the idea that eugenics is around the corner scares the heck out of me. So I guess it is pick your poison. I can understand where you are coming from, and I hope you see where I am coming from.

Basically, the question is whether we want to allow mothers to be able to have designer babies to their preferences, practicing a sort of eugenics, and if that becomes a widespread practice, how might that effect society? I don't think it is crazy to start wondering about that with the emerging technology.

Also, while you vehemently defend the woman's own preferences and opinions, those preferences and opinions are generally formed by society at large. So the choices a woman makes on those preferences will generally reflect that of a mainly patriarchal society, just like they did in China. Societies preferences determining the traits of designer babies also scares me. Either way, I think it should at least be discussed and definitely not looked at as black and white.

[SheilaT]

14. I would argue that there is

a difference between aborting a child who is unplanned and unwanted, or one with a serious genetic defect, and one who is simply the "wrong" gender, sexual orientation, or other kind of condition.

What needs to change is societal attitudes that encourage the abortion of female fetuses in some cultures, or that may encourage aborting other "undesirable" fetuses for any reason whatsoever.

I also recognize that there is a huge gray area. When I was pregnant at age 38 with my second child, I politely declined testing to see if my baby had Down Syndrome, because I personally did not see that as sufficient reason for an abortion. For me. I would NEVER criticize another woman who chooses abortion then. However, during this same pregnancy, my own mother asked me if I wasn't concerned that this new baby might develop the same auto-immune disorder that my first child already had. That was alopecia areata, a condition that causes hair loss. My first son lost all of his hair at age 4. I said I certainly hoped that this new baby wouldn't have alopecia areata, but I didn't particularly fret about it.

My second son was born healthy, not with Down Syndrome. At age 10 he did develop alopecia areata, lost all of his hair, and I am now the proud and happy mother of two totally bald sons, ages 26 and 22.

To me there really is a line that can be drawn. Abort a baby who will lose all of his hair ten years down the road? If that sort of decision becomes acceptable, we may as well become like the book Brave New World in which all babies are designer babies, bred for specific jobs, levels of intelligence, and looks.

[Scout]

20. dead is dead ... it doesn't matter to the fetus why it was terminated

and it's no one else's business.

[tritsofme]

15. In America we abort upwards of 90% of detected cases of Down's Syndrome.

That's the determination our society has made.

As technology progresses, I definitely think that we will see couples screening more and more for the "perfect baby"

How or should we discourage the practice while maintaining the mantle of choice?

I simply don't have any good answers.

[rug]

17. Interesting question.

[omega minimo]

19. It's "right to choose" not right to "choose" -- emphasis on "RIGHT" over one's own body

[noamnety]

30. Thank you

The sarcasm quotes around "choose" were inappropriate in the OP, I appreciate you pointing that out.

I'm sure there are cases where men planned on a boy and a girl - and then had two girls and decided they'd try one more time. Perhaps they would like to check in with me for permission to hold off on that vasectomy in those circumstances.

I look forward to the opportunity to interfere with OP's decisions to have a vasectomy - or any other surgery - at some point, and to counsel him on acceptable reasons he may have procedures done on his own body.

[omega minimo]

39. Yesterday's baby switching story from 56 years ago...

One of the mothers (who wasn't drugged up) noticed the switch and hospital staff ignored her. Why should they listen to HER?

How much has changed since then?

[Sparkly]

21. I think this is a red herring.

Like stem cell research being dangerous because it could lead to cloning.

[ismnotwasm]

33. I think you are right n/t

[Lars39]

22. None of us choose our parents,

but I can imagine the scope of the hell on earth that an unwanted child experiences. Choice should exist because it is a woman's right. What she does with that choice is up to her. Hopefully the society she lives in wants healthy children of either sex, not just a particular sex.

[AngryAmish]

24. What is healthy?

Lactose tolerance? Downs? Dwarfism? Gayness?

[Lars39]

26. People's capabilities are not all the same.

Would you force a woman to birth a child she would not be up to caring for? Still comes back to choice.

[AngryAmish]

28. I would force no woman

I just want people to realize that we have this set of laws allowing abortion in any case. It becomes de facto eugenics when combined with medical technology that allows predictions about behavior, abilities, conditions etc based on genetics. In the future we will be less diverse.

[Lars39]

32. Not sure how to head it off.

But I'm in a "glass is half full" kind of mood, so perhaps I'm more optimistic today. :)

[AngryAmish]

23. In the future there will be fewer gay folks

The weight of the evidence is being gay is a result of genes and exposure to certain hormones during early gestation. (Or there abouts, if I am wrong then I greet correction cheerfully).

Anyway, in the future (and the near-term future - 20 years) there will be a way to test for gayness with a fairly good rate - say 90%. And using that information many women will choose to abort. That is the way prejudiced people are.

90% of fetus with Down Syndrome are aborted. Prejudiced people see gayness the same way.

Like it or not eugenics is here and it will be expanded more and more.

(BTW, I don't think a fetus should be aborted if gay.)

[Sparkly]

25. I just don't believe this.

The people who would do that believe abortion is murder and homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice."

[surrealAmerican]

27. We need to allow it...

... because we need to allow abortion in cases where the woman doesn't feel ready or capable to have any child. There are women who would feel ready to have a "normal" child, but not one who would have some condition she feels unable to deal with.

We should try as a society to make "abnormal" as acceptable as "normal"; it's the best way to counter the sort of thinking that leads people to decide that babies need to be "perfect" to have a decent life.

[ismnotwasm]

29. Eugenics is an absolute horror

The choice whether to risk one's body carrying a pregnancy to term is not, it's a human right.

The two topics while intertwined, are not the same.

Any society that starts developing frightening gender inequities, like China, what is it, 120 males for every 100 women? is not going to be a healthy society. The best way to fight eugenics is to fight structural misogyny and sexism, not reinforce it by controlling women's bodies.

[sybylla]

34. Seems to me abortion is a privacy issue.

The SCOTUS, even the most conservative of the justices, has to be terrified that if they overturn Roe v. Wade, they are also overturning your right to bodily privacy because the only way to enforce it is if your body is no longer your own. And if that privacy goes away for women, it also goes away for men. If privacy in your person vanishes, what other privacies do you lose?

So, it also seems to me that we're walking that very same line when we talk about enforcing any other use/prohibition of abortion. Of course the SCOTUS has let some regulation of abortion stand. And maybe this can be accomplished in the same manner. But how do you report the results of fetal testing like amniocentesis without reporting information that may lead a family to make what some are calling a "eugenics" decision?

In the end, it's the woman's decision to have the baby or not. That's why it's called "choice." You either agree she has the right to make that choice based on her own circumstances and advice of her doctor or you don't.

[The2ndWheel]

36. If choice is choice, then choice should be choice

About every issue and topic, even the unfair choices. If choice is really a human right, then any and all choices should be valid, but they're not. Some choices are deemed good, other choices are deemed bad. You might have to pay a penalty for the wrong choice, even if you think it was the right one. The laws concerning those right and wrong choices are agreed upon by particular people, in particular places, at particular times, so the laws are as arbitrary as the choices are.

If choice is choice, then choice should be choice. I have a feeling that most people wouldn't want to live in such a reality though.

As to this particular choice, I guess she has to do what she has to do. As to where this is going to take humanity, do we have a choice?

[ensho]

37. right to chose means just that - a woman can chose what will be in

her womb or not.

after all, she has to nurture what appears for the next 18 yrs.

heck yes, women have a right to chose.

[dugaresa]

40. it has to do with what people are willing to deal with

regarding the choice to have an abortion:

you have the women

who are vicitms of rape and don't want to bear their rapist's child
who are too young to raise and care for a child
who can't not deal with the idea of parenting alone
who find that they are financially unble to have a child even if they may want the child
who discover that the child is going to be born with a deformity or illness so bad that they can't deal with the lifelong
committment and disappointment or the heartache involved in the care of that child (it is no easy road to raise a child with a severe illness)
who may be in a marriage where the spouse doesn't want kids and they don't want to lose the spouse
who may want a child of a particular sex because it is very important to them or their spouse and it may result in the breakup or perhaps
problems in the marriage (it has happened)
who may have dismay at having a child who may not be like them (hetero or not)


you also have the folks who take life as it comes and they just deal with it, however if you take that course in regard to parenting you must make sure that you don't take out your frustrations on the child. There are countless cases where a family of all girls has had the last few be resented by the father or the mother for not being the "boy they wanted", or the child who is neglected by a parent who really never wanted to be a parent. How many gay folks have been out right rejected by family for their sexual orientation? That is absolutely cruel but people do it. I can't imagine doing it to one of my kids but there are folks out there that do it every day and that is far worse.

Goes both ways in choice

If you choose to bear a child and keep it, you have to be committed to making the best of it.

[cbc5g]

41. Whats the big deal? People can (or should be able to) abort all they want for whatever reason

Why should that bother anyone, it's not like everybody and their sister will be aborting until they get just the right one. It's just another form of natural selection in my opinion. If there will be a shortage of women, i'm sure the practice will stop to balance things out.

[kiva]

42. We mean that a woman has a right to choose. Period.

Doesn't matter whether or not you or I or anyone else agrees why she makes that choice, it is her choice. The minute we decide that some reasons (rape, incest) are more valid that others, we are on that damn slippery slope. What then? Do we legislate that only women who have 'acceptable' reasons to terminate a pregnancy can get an abortion? Do we create a protected group of fetuses that can't be aborted?

Societies have the tools to prevent many of these projected cases of eugenic abortions. If China chose to pay a bonus or stipend to parents of baby girls that would equal the economic benefit of boys, I suspect the gender gap would close pretty quickly. If GLBTs were treated equally in society--no DADT, the right to marry and have families, and other rights I'm not thinking about at the moment--the incentive to abort would be diminished.

Will some women choose what we consider the 'wrong' reason to have an abortion? Yes. Doesn't matter, it's her choice.