Tuesday, January 10, 2012


Eugenics–the idea that the human race can be improved through selective breeding–was widely accepted in the first three decades of the last century. Mental health patients were forcibly sterilized in the USA because of it. Eugenics gained special credibility in Germany, where it laid the foundation for the Nazi holocaust. Now … something very much like it has returned under the guise of non-invasive prenatal diagnosis.

Non-invasive prenatal diagnosis allows mothers to learn whether their unborn child has Down syndrome with a high degree of certainty at an early stage in pregnancy. As a result: ”By 2030, Denmark will become Down Syndrome-free. . . . The number of DS [Down Syndrome] births halved in 2005 and has dropped by 13 percent every year since then. . . . In recent years, abortions of DS pregnancies have outnumbered live births worldwide. In France and Switzerland, over 85 percent of all DS pregnancies are terminated.”

Those tempted to see this as a good thing might want to ask themselves where it should stop. Suppose for example that a gene were identified which accurately predicts a propensity for alcoholism, and suppose this gene could be further identified during pregnancy. Should all babies who are likely to become alcoholics be aborted? Imagine a world without drinking problems, and it’s tempting indeed.
But what about children with learning disabilities? Attention deficit disorder? Dyslexia? Or how about homosexuality? After all, most of the arguments for normalizing society’s view of homosexuality depend on the assumption that gay people are born that way.

Then there’s skin color. Many people believe darker skinned people have more social challenges in America, even among African Americans. Should unborn children with darker skin be aborted for their own good?

Clearly, a line must be drawn somewhere, but by whom? Assuming the medical technology will soon exist to test for all of these and countless more genetic possibilities, should we allow a mother to continue to become pregnant and abort until she finally has a fetus she believes is worthy of a life outside her womb?
It is not a hypothetical question in Asia, where hundreds of millions of unborn girls have been selectively aborted in the last few years because boys are considered more valuable. In some Chinese cities, the ratio of newborn boys to girls is not 1.5 to 1.

The answer to these questions is that human beings are not capable of answering these questions. We are not gods. Again and again we will think such selective breeding is wrong for others, but acceptable in our particular case. We, after all, are experts as assuming we are exceptions to the rule. So given the ability to breed selectively, and given our fundamental selfishness, we will follow in the footsteps of the Nazis.

Indeed, with 1.3 million abortions in America every year, we already have.

Article source: http://dailycristo.com/religion/abortions-of-down-syndrome-babies-nearly-universal/

Image by Conny Wenk: http://kidswithalittleextra.blogspot.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment