The other category of women that abortion laws are going to screw over....

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Yea where abortion intersects with eugenics is where I'll be honest that I don't think I have a good opinion. A bunch of people who are pro life are social darwinist as hell. The whole topic makes me uneasy. Because even if I say "there is no moral problem", that still leaves me with does mankind have the knowledge/wisdom to make those calls and if so what lines are we drawing and who is drawing them?

I think your genetic screening question is pretty valid. In my heart of hearts, I think once you're born you're here. But if you're not viable yet, it seems far more humane for these kids to never experience the pain they're about to get and I don't have a huge problem with genetic screening for known "life altering" diseases such as Downs, Hunington's, etc. To my mind it shouldn't be expensive, it should be free. It is not in the state, nor family, nor communities interests to have people never capable of production. So the knowledge should be free- the choice should be up to the mother/family. And it would be better if we could actually create gene therapies that could fix this stuff in utero, but if people can't get past the abortion squick factor, I doubt we could ever get there.

Note - my notice of "capable of production" is not an ablist thing. For me it's the knowledge that people who cannot have to muddle through life on what society will give them and honestly, historically it's both terrible and far too easy to screw them over.

[HEMI6point1]

I think your genetic screening question is pretty valid. In my heart of hearts, I think once you're born you're here. But if you're not viable yet, it seems far more humane for these kids to never experience the pain they're about to get and I don't have a huge problem with genetic screening for known "life altering" diseases such as Downs, Hunington's, etc. To my mind it shouldn't be expensive, it should be free. It is not in the state, nor family, nor communities interests to have people never capable of production. So the knowledge should be free- the choice should be up to the mother/family. And it would be better if we could actually create gene therapies that could fix this stuff in utero, but if people can't get past the abortion squick factor, I doubt we could ever get there.

I'm in total agreement with you on that. Regarding downs, there is a lot of effort being made to criminalize abortion if it's listed as a reason. I say the people authoring those bills have made no effort into researching the condition and what it entails.

It's a spectrum. Downs kids are cute and cuddly when they are 1.... not so cute and cuddly when they reach their teenage years and the full extent of their downs is revealed. The ones that are trotted out on conservative news sources that are advocating for the abortion bans are always the ones on the "high functioning" end.

As someone mentioned on Reddit on this very topic, you might wind up with a (relatively) high functioning, happy kid that knows his/her way around their limitations or a nightmare that can't feed or dress themselves and flies into uncontrollable rages at the drop of a hat. Why take the chance?

[Canarr]

Well "late term" abortions are extremely rare to begin with.

I know. So it shouldn't really be a big issue to exclude them, should it? Again, barring medical necessity.

That is the question of "medical necessity." Is it really just to save the life of the mother, or when the fetus tests positive for something that will saddle it with a poor quality of life with no chance of elevating out of it?

That... is a slippery slope if I've ever heard of one. I'm German - not sure if that has anything to do with it, but any suggestion of eugenics makes me wary.

While the principle of, "Why let the kid be born if he's only going to suffer in life?" certainly makes sense in principle, where do you draw the line? The more medical science progresses, the more they'll be able to determine during a pre-natal screening.

Your child will be born with a congenital heart failure and die before their tenth birthday.
Your child will be a born with a mental defect and never be able to dress himself, much less function in society.
Your child will be born with Down syndrome.
Your child will be born with Asperger's / be on the Autism spectrum.
Your child's IQ will be below 100.
Your boy won't grow taller than five feet.
Your child will not be conventionally attractive.

If you haven't seen it, I recommend the movie Gattaca. It shows a society where medical science basically allows you to pre-determine your kid's abilities by mixing the best hereditary traits of both parents. If you can afford it. If you can't, your children will be born naturally - and end up as second-class citizens, because obviously, they can't be as good as the genetically improved people.

[HEMI6point1]

Your child will be born with Asperger's / be on the Autism spectrum.

It makes me wonder with all the advancements in medical science why prenatal screening for autism hasn't been invented yet.

In fact, one of my pro-life friends asked me, "If you feel that way about downs what if they had testing for autism, would you abort then if it comes back positive?"

In order to make such a test useful it would have to detect the severity of the autism, not just "yes" or "no." If it was a "high functioning" spectrum like Asberger's then no I wouldn't, but if it was a severe one then most likely yes.

In fact, I think that the medical field might have already invented it but are afraid to come forward with it because the pro-life people would lobby hard to get it either outlawed or made incredibly expensive as they know what would happen if it was cheap or free.

[Canarr]

I have no idea what is or isn't possible with regards to pre-natal screening, I must admit.

My problem with this kind of option is the same as in my last post: slippery slope. Once you could determine the child's position on the Autism spectrum, where would you draw the line? Where does "high-functioning" end and "low-functioning" begin? Or would you allow people to decide for themselves? No pressure there, I suppose.