It is extremely ironic that the right to abortion has materially impacted the “right” to procreation. The thinking appears to be along these lines: The right to terminate a pregnancy means that women also have the right to ensure that they only bear the kind of baby they want when they choose to carry to term. We see this especially in IVF preimplantation testing, which has now–as reported here at SHS–moved to destroying embryos that test for the wrong sex, hair, and eye color.
Well, now information to permit this eugenic cleansing will soon be available to women who became pregnant through intercourse. A test kit is about to be marketed that would permit a pregnant woman to learn the sex of her fetus. From the story:
A new test to reveal the gender of a fetus in early pregnancy has sparked a row over whether it will lead to sex-selection abortions. The American-designed IntelliGender test kit, which can be used from eight weeks after conception, went on sale in Australia last month. Its Australian distributor hopes to launch it in New Zealand within a fortnight…He expected they would sell for about $125.
They do not test pregnancy, so do not require state approval under the Medicines Act, unlike pregnancy tests. To use the new test, a pregnant woman mixes her urine with the kit’s chemicals in the supplied container. If it turns green or black, the fetus is a boy; orange or yellow indicate a girl. The kits are claimed to be 90 per cent accurate, but because patents have not yet been issued, the maker will not reveal the supporting data or the science of how they work.
How ironic that a procedure intended by its supporters to liberate women is likely to become a tool–as ultra sounds have on a mass scale in India and China–enabling the sexist destruction of (mostly) women-to-be. But it won’t matter. Abortion has helped open the door to a eugenic culture in which one of the first casualties–at least for some–has been unconditional parental love of their child.
June 8th, 2009 | 12:25 pm
Actually there is already such a product sold; I’ve seen it advertised in at least one chain drugstore. No idea how accurate it is.
June 8th, 2009 | 12:32 pm
Swell.
June 8th, 2009 | 4:47 pm
Well, what were we expecting? Maybe some will finally understand what we in the disability community have been saying for years now-that abortion based on a fetal characteristic is a form of prejudice and contributes to the social oppression of certain people groups. What makes me even angrier is to think of how this will be presented as history if society eventually decides that these measures are wrong. It will be presented like eugenics and the holocaust are presented now-”they aborted females, gay people, African Americans….oh, and by the way….they started with the disabled.” The disabled always get “by the way” status in such discussions.
June 8th, 2009 | 7:27 pm
Safepres: Indeed. The issue of “choice” has the capacity to cover a lot of terrible things. Which is why it is important to engage these issues. Regardless of the law, we have to help people embrace equality and diversity.
June 9th, 2009 | 11:05 am
IMHO-This is no different than when the Spartans would throw undesirable babys off the high cliffs into the Mediterranean.
June 9th, 2009 | 2:25 pm
There seems to be a growing consensus that autism-spectrum disorders (ASDs) have a genetic origin, possibly involving several genes, that trigger the condition through external stimuli. The often-cited statistic is that 1 in 150 US children has an ASD.
When autism can be detected in the womb as can Down’s syndrome, watch the number of abortions skyrocket. Most of these will be male fetuses. This will more than make up for the deliberate selection of female fetuses to terminate. And none of this is good.
June 9th, 2009 | 5:38 pm
K-Man-that’s what I am worried about as well. My disorder, Nonverbal Learning Disorder, is thought, by some, to be on the autism spectrum next to Aspberger’s Syndrome. I read an article a few years ago arguing that NVLD is not caused by environmental factors after birth (which is what my parents and I used to think because I had an infection/breathing problem after I was born) but is caused by how the brain forms in the womb. Given how detection tests for Down Syndrome have been used, I will not donate to or participate in any study that might lead to a detection test fo NVLD or another autism spectrum disorder. Although, there is, apparently, some sort of test for autism already, because I also read an article about a mother suing a obgyn because he didn’t offer the test and her son was born with autism-she said that if she had known, she would have aborted. Such suits are called “Wrongful Birth lawsuits.”
June 10th, 2009 | 11:38 pm
The saddest part of all this is that the tests themselves *could* have such noble applications. Granted, about the only reason I could see for wanting to know a baby’s sex is so that you can tell the folks, “Please, send us pink blankets! We got so many yellow and lime green ones from you guys trying to be gender neutral on our last baby that we nearly went blind!”
But tests for things like Down’s Syndrome and Autism *could* be used for things like learning what kinds of medical needs your baby could have, or helping parents find schools that have excellent programs for Autistic students, so they have that much advanced warning of how to make life easier for themselves and their kids.
Instead, people will use the tests as a way to throw away the unwanted.
There was a great article… jeez, I have to find it again. I think it was at Discovery Institute, but I’m not sure if it was *there* or if there was just a link to it –
The question posed was, “Would the world really be better off if we had more Down’s Syndrome babies?” And a doctor answered with such beautiful examples of real children that the answer was a resounding, “Yes, the world has been better off with these kids in it.” I need to find the article and link it here.
June 11th, 2009 | 1:40 am
I have to wonder if this has something to do with the re-ordering of values and priorities in our society. Though I believe that people have an innate fallenness, I also believe that some of the progress made since the civil rights movement, that is improving on equal regard for each individual, has regressed back to what it was before that time, particularly in regard to valuing goodness, kindness, and love, which Down Syndrome people tend to have a lot of, even if they will not grow up to to be the Ira de Camp Bioethics Chair at Princeton.
June 12th, 2009 | 12:41 pm
[...] OLD MONSTERS RISING– Eugenic Sex Selection Abortions Coming to a Clinic Near You …. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact