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.
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.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
