Abortion as eugenics

  • 13 March 2018
  • NormanL
Abortion as eugenics

The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus penned a column that has pro-life advocates rightly upset. It deals efforts in some states to ban abortions solely on the basis of tests showing the fetus has Down Syndrome.

Marcus writes that such laws are unconstitutional and wrong. But she goes several steps further:

I can say without hesitation that, tragic as it would have felt and ghastly as a second-trimester abortion would have been, I would have terminated those pregnancies had the testing come back positive. I would have grieved the loss and moved on.

And I am not alone. More than two-thirds of American women choose abortion in such circumstances. Isn’t that the point — or at least inherent in the point — of prenatal testing in the first place?

If you believe that abortion is equivalent to murder, the taking of a human life, then of course you would make a different choice. But that is not my belief, and the Supreme Court has affirmed my freedom to have that belief and act accordingly.

Marcus admits her "respect" and admiration for parents who "knowingly welcome a baby with Down syndrome into their lives."

But she will have none of it:

I’m going to be blunt here: That was not the child I wanted. That was not the choice I would have made. You can call me selfish, or worse, but I am in good company. The evidence is clear that most women confronted with the same unhappy alternative would make the same decision.

Writing in National Review, Wesley Smith calls this position what it is: abortion as eugenics...

The ubiquitous aborting of Down babies brings up other eugenics issues. With genetic and other testing becoming increasingly sophisticated — and our understanding of how gene expression more precise — we are close the point where abortion may soon be deployed to eradicate babies that look to be autistic or experience some other “unwanted” characteristic.

This will certainly include aesthetics. Babies that are the “wrong” sex are already being aborted, and soon, perhaps abortion will be available to destroy children that will have a propensity for obesity, a likely skin color or other unwanted racial characteristic, perhaps even, if the later adult would be threatened with early onset cancer or Alzheimer’s.

Smith continues, saying that abortion has become something truly horrifying in the eyes of its most adamant supporters:

Now, termination is becoming fashioned into a cudgel of the new eugenics, under which we not only have the right to have a baby — regardless of our life circumstance and the type of assistance required (“gestational carriers”) to obtain our entitlement — but also a right to the baby we want.

We are witnessing what can only be described as a corrosion of unconditional parental love. There will be consequences.

We accept that many liberty supporters are conflicted on abortion. But we should all understand that when this procedure is used to destroy the unwanted based merely upon how inconvenient their genes might be, we are truly sliding down an amoral rabbit hole.