Eugenics and Equality Can't Mix Aborting babies
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 08/28/2016 8:08:19 AM
Re: Honeycomb777 #18511
Eugenics and Equality Can't Mix
Aborting babies with detected disabilities is incompatible with equality.
From the perspective of the disabled and their advocates, we are living in a schizophrenic culture. On the one hand, we are striving to eliminate discrimination and create a society that is welcoming, understanding and inclusive of the largest minority group in the country – a society where having a special need is not a cause for shame and isolation. On the other, we are also a society that goes to great lengths to prevent the birth of the disabled themselves, sharply discriminating against them at their most vulnerable stage.
I am referring, of course, to pre-natal diagnosis with the intent to abort.
Fetal ultrasound has opened a window into the mysteries of early human development and has revolutionized the way we think and feel about pregnancy. "Meeting" one's little girl or boy through the grainy images of the sonogram has become a delightful rite in almost every pregnancy. Unfortunately, it is also a moment when a problem may become apparent: signs of Down's Syndrome, Dwarfism, Cleft Palate or a limb discrepancy. Many times, the presence of a disability or physical defect, or even the possibility of one, drives the parents to "select" against the child. In other words, they abort and "try again."
The number of babies born with disabilities such as Down’s Syndrome has dwindled in America, due to what can fairly be called eugenic abortion. Eugenics is a strong term, and we normally associate it with the depredations of the Nazis, who envisioned the creation of a race of strong and healthy people with no genetic defects. We know what that led them to inflict on humanity. Eugenics is the creation or selection of offspring with "desirable" traits, and the elimination of those that are deemed "deficient." Aborting a child with Dwarfism or Down's would certainly qualify as eugenic.
In this country the practice is widespread and widely accepted. While it is done quietly every day, encouraged by obstetricians scared of a "wrongful life" suit, prominent ethicists are not ashamed of promoting eugenic abortion openly. Peter Singer, ethics professor at Princeton once said, "It does not seem quite wise to increase further drainage of limited resources by increasing the number of children with impairments." The scientist who produced the first successful in-vitro baby, Bob Edwards, predicted "soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children." This kind of thinking is infecting our culture as prenatal diagnosis becomes ever more effective. Parents of disabled children may feel that they must justify their acceptance of a child who is differently "abled," in an environment where aborting the children is rapidly becoming a duty, not a right.
You might well imagine that people with disabilities are sharply critical of a world-view that would make their very existence a "sin." They themselves value their lives, and suffer their sorrows and delight in their joys, just the same as the "abled." Helen Houghton, a disability advocate, wrote: "The new genetic technologies, including prenatal diagnosis and termination, are inherently a technology of oppression and control, which serve to devalue the lives of people identified as having disabilities." The disabled often contend that it is the discrimination they face at the outset of their lives, as well as socially and in the workplace that is their greatest burden, much more than the disability itself. The disabled would also contend that a child with a disability has the same capacity as an "abled" child to fulfill all the loving dreams and aspirations of his or her parents. Parents who abort are greatly misinformed about the capacity of the disabled to bring their mothers, fathers, and other family members tremendous joy and pride.
A society that wishes (laudably) to eradicate discrimination must address the problem at all levels and in every instance. This is an important ideological challenge to those who champion a "woman's right to choose" as an absolute one, with no boundaries or ethical restrictions. When we do everything in our power to detect the existence of a baby with a special need with the sole purpose of terminating him or her, we create a discriminatory culture, where only perfect humans may apply for entrance. This is a powerful obstacle against equality and acceptance of the disabled, which a just society must set as its first goal.
Aborting babies with detected disabilities is incompatible with equality.
From the perspective of the disabled and their advocates, we are living in a schizophrenic culture. On the one hand, we are striving to eliminate discrimination and create a society that is welcoming, understanding and inclusive of the largest minority group in the country – a society where having a special need is not a cause for shame and isolation. On the other, we are also a society that goes to great lengths to prevent the birth of the disabled themselves, sharply discriminating against them at their most vulnerable stage.
I am referring, of course, to pre-natal diagnosis with the intent to abort.
Fetal ultrasound has opened a window into the mysteries of early human development and has revolutionized the way we think and feel about pregnancy. "Meeting" one's little girl or boy through the grainy images of the sonogram has become a delightful rite in almost every pregnancy. Unfortunately, it is also a moment when a problem may become apparent: signs of Down's Syndrome, Dwarfism, Cleft Palate or a limb discrepancy. Many times, the presence of a disability or physical defect, or even the possibility of one, drives the parents to "select" against the child. In other words, they abort and "try again."
The number of babies born with disabilities such as Down’s Syndrome has dwindled in America, due to what can fairly be called eugenic abortion. Eugenics is a strong term, and we normally associate it with the depredations of the Nazis, who envisioned the creation of a race of strong and healthy people with no genetic defects. We know what that led them to inflict on humanity. Eugenics is the creation or selection of offspring with "desirable" traits, and the elimination of those that are deemed "deficient." Aborting a child with Dwarfism or Down's would certainly qualify as eugenic.
In this country the practice is widespread and widely accepted. While it is done quietly every day, encouraged by obstetricians scared of a "wrongful life" suit, prominent ethicists are not ashamed of promoting eugenic abortion openly. Peter Singer, ethics professor at Princeton once said, "It does not seem quite wise to increase further drainage of limited resources by increasing the number of children with impairments." The scientist who produced the first successful in-vitro baby, Bob Edwards, predicted "soon it will be a sin of parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children." This kind of thinking is infecting our culture as prenatal diagnosis becomes ever more effective. Parents of disabled children may feel that they must justify their acceptance of a child who is differently "abled," in an environment where aborting the children is rapidly becoming a duty, not a right.
You might well imagine that people with disabilities are sharply critical of a world-view that would make their very existence a "sin." They themselves value their lives, and suffer their sorrows and delight in their joys, just the same as the "abled." Helen Houghton, a disability advocate, wrote: "The new genetic technologies, including prenatal diagnosis and termination, are inherently a technology of oppression and control, which serve to devalue the lives of people identified as having disabilities." The disabled often contend that it is the discrimination they face at the outset of their lives, as well as socially and in the workplace that is their greatest burden, much more than the disability itself. The disabled would also contend that a child with a disability has the same capacity as an "abled" child to fulfill all the loving dreams and aspirations of his or her parents. Parents who abort are greatly misinformed about the capacity of the disabled to bring their mothers, fathers, and other family members tremendous joy and pride.
A society that wishes (laudably) to eradicate discrimination must address the problem at all levels and in every instance. This is an important ideological challenge to those who champion a "woman's right to choose" as an absolute one, with no boundaries or ethical restrictions. When we do everything in our power to detect the existence of a baby with a special need with the sole purpose of terminating him or her, we create a discriminatory culture, where only perfect humans may apply for entrance. This is a powerful obstacle against equality and acceptance of the disabled, which a just society must set as its first goal.
(0)
(0)