Yesterday, I was sorting through my notes from the genetics class I took a term ago. Talking about eugenics was a big part of it, and although I’m all about history, the projection of what might happen in the future regarding gene & infant selection and society really interested me. Much of this is in the future, dependent on whether or not certain traits can be specifically selected for.
The current touchy topic is, I think, abortion as selection.
A peculiar situation arises when disability activism and pro-choice feminism clashes. Pro-choice feminists often argue that each person has the right to control their own body. Therefore if a woman decides to abort a fetus, for whatever reason—including deformity/disability, it should be legal and socially acceptable. The right to choose has moved beyond whether to choose to birth a child or not; it has become the right to choose what kind of children we will have.
On the opposing side, from what I’ve read, disability activists often argue that living with disabilities is possible, and that people with Down’s Syndrome, for instance, often can lead good and happy lives. Thus they frequently oppose prenatal screening and/or abortion of fetuses with Down’s Syndrome or other “abnormalities.” Some 90% of fetuses diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome are aborted. This, to me, is clearly a form of eugenics, albeit one not enforced by the state.
This trend suggests that women are choosing fetuses that are “normal.” However, what is normal? This is a very fluid category. It seems to me that people with Down’s can lead very satisfying and productive lives.
To bring the argument forward a few years: it has been suggested that in the future, some sort of genetic basis for homosexuality will be found. Same with obesity. Should this occur, should women be allowed to test for and abort fetuses with these genetic inclinations?
What is the ethical difference between aborting a fetus because you don’t want the costs of raising a child, or aborting a fetus because it might grow up to be fat or gay? I’m not completely sure.
The unalloyed right to choose may have some major consequences on society. Take China, for instance. Selection for male fetuses has really messed up the makeup of recent generations, with severe social problems to come when women are scarcer than men. But if we reject abortion on some grounds (Down’s Syndrome, sex), how can we countenance it on other grounds (social circumstances, the right to choose)? Does the right to choose include the right to reject fetuses for disabilities, sex, sexual orientation, eye color, and so on? I’m at a loss.
Despite not being an organized-religion person myself, I think that certain religious conservatives (Roman Catholics, mainly) really have it easy with this one, philosophically. If all life is sacred/holy/gift of God, then it’s unacceptable to abort a fetus that has Down’s syndrome, is male/female, has genetic inclinations towards homosexuality, has blue eyes, etc. etc. Very black and white. I envy them, while the rest of us are mired in gray.
When I grew up in a very, very conservative community, I maintained a staunch feminism throughout my junior high and high school years that went against most everyone else’s opinions about abortion. This continued through college. I still don’t think abortion should be totally illegal. However, these days, I find this issue less straightforward. I never thought I’d be reassessing my views on abortion, but here I am.
I’d love discussion on this topic, if anyone’s interested, but let’s keep it civil.
