Abortion based on disability is eugenics - Here's why

[The Grand Nudger]

We do selective breeding in the same way we did eugenics, poorly..lol.  I'm not so sure that relationships just happen, and we all have preferences.  Yes, I did hope to have intelligent kids by limiting my potential mates to smart girls.  I went for darker hair.  Under 120...probably, yeah..but there was wiggle room.  

"Feeling it's right" sounds all fluffy and awesome...but it can just as easily -and more accurately- be described as selective breeding(and what makes it "feel right"?). Selective breeding is a method to achieve the same aims as eugenics (the original method).  No ones telling you it's wrong to pick and choose your mates - just mentioning that if we're looking to include things in eugenics..selective breeding goes in there too.  Selective breeding -was- a component of that last infamous eugenics program, after all...eh?

[Alex K]

Hmm. Can you briefly state again what your definition of eugenics is?

Can't you read it again?

It's an ideology or idea that seeks to create a better society trough the prevalence or majority of individuals with more desirable traits in detriment of individuals with less desirable traits.

Ok, if that is all, then I reject your claim that couples choosing which fetus to keep is in general eugenics. I don't think that couples who make that decision are thinking about the gene pool. They think about what their child is going to do when they are not there for it any more one day, the emotional burden, the suffering that might come with a disability, and yes, maybe also economic aspects. But improving the gene pool? If it plays a role I don't think it is a big one.

[Dystopia]

No but as I said it is a subconscious thinking that normal kids are better to have - Therefore normals > disabled. What I said in the beginning is simply that we can hold ideas subconsciously - You can be racist because you are irrationally afraid of blacks but still have black friends and love them to death

Selective breeding is a method to achieve the same aims as eugenics (the original method). No ones telling you it's wrong to pick and choose your mates - just mentioning that if we're looking to include things in eugenics..selective breeding goes in there too. Selective breeding -was- a component of that last infamous eugenics program, after all...eh?

It usually is the main method + sometimes exterminating groups, but where does it stop honestly? Why is it that it's perfectly moral for individuals to do it but the government can't? If it's so common why not let the government choose how do you breed (and maybe a biologist, etc)? My whole point isn't to stop people from advocating the idea because most likely I would tell my girlfriend to abort if she had a disabled fetuses in her uterus (and I would feel immoral, but life is full of immorality) - It's just for people to recognize it's motivated by eugenic thoughts.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not, personally, very subconscious about that one.  Having "normal" kids is plainly better,...even if there's not much difference between the kids once you have them.  I have 5, one suffered nerve damage in the womb and during delivery (left her arm inop)- nearly killed her mom on the way out.  Glad to have her, love her to death, I'll beat a bitch senseless (children included) if they ever say an unkind word to her on that count.....and I didn't take her out to the beach and throw her on the rocks on account of her disability and the good of the rest of us, -that- would be eugenics.

-but, it's better to have "normal" children.....and I'm not so sure that's eugenics.  Sorry.  I'm with Alex...it really does hinge on whether or not you're making some statement about the "good of the species" as a justification. Making a better person, a desired person. I do agree with you though, in a sense...that alot of our subconscious urges coincide or align with things like eugenics, racism (why wouldn't they?) - just...again, not sure that abortions based upon disability are or have to be one of those things.

[paulpablo]

I've witnessed some people here supporting abortion based on disability and saying there's nothing wrong with ability-selective abortions, but I don't think that's how it works. First and foremost this isn't going to be a debate about abortion - I believe abortion is neither moral nor immoral, it's simply lacking in morality because there isn't a sentient living being. An abortion done on the basis of disability is as valid as if it was done on the basis of money, personal choice, etc. This isn't focused on the ethics of abortion but rather reasons and prejudices about disabled people. 

Here's my thought:

Abortion based on disability isn't immoral and less valid than other abortions, but the reasons for it can be immoral or bigoted - I can criticize a mother who aborts a female fetus because she believes girls are unworthy because it's a sexist misogynistic thought that motivates it - Using the same logic, abortions done because of disability are primarily done for two reasons --> (1) Because of perceived and often unfounded evidence lacking economic burdens (2) Because simply putting it "normal" people are seen as more desirable. We don't need to be politically correct about this, the reason why people abort disabled fetuses (and those are frequently aborted) is because they don't want a different kid and want a kid who fits the parameters of normality and parental expectations - It's because we believe disabled people are devoid of autonomy, both cognitive and frequently economic and dependent upon society - In short, it's because disabled people are simply less desirable than normal people.

Now why isn't this eugenics? Eugenics is basically advocating creating a better society trough the prevalence of individuals with more desirable traits. Eugenics can be legally implemented and it becomes serious like, for example, promoting reproduction of individuals with more desirable traits (like high IQ's) and forbidding reproduction of individuals with less desirable ones (like low IQ's or poor people) - The extremest form would be exterminating less desirable people. However, to promote or spouse eugenic ideas we don't need to go as far as to consciously believe some people are better - Just like we can be racist without waving an Aryan brotherhood flag, we can be homophobic and supportive of gay marriage etc there's no reason to not classify the belief that disabled fetuses have special reasons to be aborted as eugenics. It is a simple less serious form of eugenics, it is less detrimental and goes unnoticed very often but that doesn't take the title away.

Please, don't bring me the "fetuses are not individuals with personhood" - This isn't about the abortion itself, it's about expectations we have and how we perceive normal people compared to disabled ones. This is a matter of perspective, people argue that disabled people should be aborted and presumably normal people are more desirable, but I could argue that instead people with IQ's over 120 are more desirable and everyone else should be exterminated. Why is my perspective wrong and others are right? It is based exactly on the same principles.

I can understand that people abort disabled fetuses for economic reasons if they can provide proof that disabled people cost that much but in a free civilized country I believe there should be free healthcare and appropriate care for everyone so that's a non issue - The next step is asking people where do they get their ideas? Most advocating the idea are body abled and have never been on a disabled person's place. There's certainly suffering because of disabilities, but there's also people who live wonderful lives. Comments about how normal is better need to be proven with evidence, not prejudices. And even if disabled people simply were miserable living souls it's not up to anyone else to decide if their lives are worth living

I'm not stopping anyone from supporting ability selective abortions, but at least don't play the "This is not eugenics because FETUSES" and simply admit that there's an eugenic thought based on desirability. Why else would you support it? Do you have proof that disabilities cost that much money? Shouldn't the state simply fund this because it's the duty of a well concerned government? Aren't normal people also very expensive (and sometimes more) than disabled people? 

The message we send when we consider it normal to abort disabled fetuses (and we do, there's no use in lying) is that disabled people are less worth of being born and pretty much are not in the same level as normals. I repeat - I don't have anything against people advocating this stance, but simply admit the truth about eugenics and don't pretend your case is magically innocent while things like desiring a society with an IQ over 120 are completely harmful. It is not legally enforced eugenics, but it is based on eugenic thoughts to a small degree and that's undeniable.

First of all I've always seen eugenics as selective breeding with the aim to improve the human population.
So this has negative connotations because it can result in certain groups in power imposing rules on other people about how they breed.
I don't know whether or not you could class personal reasons for choosing to have an abortion with reasons of the child being disabled as being eugenics since the goal isn't really to improve the genetics of the population, the motivation may just be that the person sees it as easier to care for someone who isn't disabled and they are probably worried about the quality of life the disabled person will have.
As someone else said, if you start saying personal preferences to breeding is eugenics then basically any choice anyone makes about who they breed with is eugenics.

And the post also seems to be implying that eugenics is definitely wrong.  If eugenics does include personal choices of breeding and selection then I don't see eugenics as always being bad or wrong.

I can't make any blanket statements about all disabilities or that all people with no disabilities will cost less than people with disabilities.
I know that a girlfriend I was seeing had a child with learning difficulties and autism and also survived cancer.  And she has two girls who have no disabilities.  From my experience the child with autism requires around the clock attention, has to do things in a certain order or can become violent, all knives and sharp objects have to be hidden anyway to cut a long story short because I have to go, basically from my experience in this case I don't like the idea of having a disabled child, she loves her son though.

[Aractus]

Eugenics is the selective breeding of humans, not the selective culling of the young.

Depending on the severity of the disability, and whether it's genetic, disabled people are less likely to procreate anyway.