DOC PREVIEW
ABORTION, EUGENICS, AND A THREAT TO DIVERSITY

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 5 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 5 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

16 THE MODERN AMERICAN ABORTION, EUGENICS, AND A THREAT TO DIVERSITY By Chris McChesney* A fter nearly three months of pregnancy, Mary sits in her doctor’s office anxiously awaiting to hear the results. Though still in her first trimester, Mary’s doctor ex-plained to her that it is becoming more common, and even more accurate, to have certain screening tests done early.1 Today Mary will learn if the child growing inside of her will be born with Down syndrome, an abnormality in the 21st chromosome that usually leads to mental retardation.2 If the test results show that her child will have Down syndrome, Mary will be forced to make a host of difficult decisions, the hardest being whether or not to carry the fetus to term. The majority of parents-to-be in Mary’s position, whose fetus tests positive for Down syndrome, choose to have an abortion rather than bringing the fetus to term and raising the child or allowing the child to be adopted.3 Many doctors counsel their patients in such circumstances to undergo abortions and doctors who treat patients with Down syndrome report seeing fewer and fewer patients.4 While not government mandated, such abortions are government sanctioned even when the pregnancy is at a later stage and when other selective abor-tions are not permitted.5 The reduction of people born with a disorder that can cripple families both emotionally and financially may be seen as an accomplishment of modern science and medicine. Alternatively, given our country’s history, the drop in the number of Down syndrome babies can be viewed as the eradication of a distinct class of people. Eugenics is believed to be non-existent in the United States today, but the systematic selective breeding of hu-mans remains a current part of society.6 The selective abortion of fetuses with Down syndrome is not referred to as eugenics, but the parallel is easy to make. The future consequences of en-hanced understanding of our genetic makeup and advances in prenatal screening foreshadow a society that justifies eugenics as a means to creating the perfect child. This article first discusses the history of eugenics in the U.S. and compares it with today’s treatment of prenatal detection of Down syndrome. Drawing on this comparison, the article will discuss potential advances in genetic screening and how such advances may be used for eugenic purposes. Specifically, the article will focus on the potential threat genetic advances and selective abortion pose to diversity, in particular, homosexuality, via a eugenics-like desire for the perfect child. This article will also discuss the genetic component of eugenics and the biologi-cal roots of homosexuality, arguing that homosexuality is not a choice, but a predetermined trait. After discussing several scien-tific studies and drawing the conclusion from them that there is a genetic link to homosexuality, the article will pose a hypothetical in which parents have the option to abort a fetus solely for the reason that the child would more likely than not be homosexual. Finally, this article will argue that while it may be a form of eugenics and threat to diversity to abort a fetus based on Down syndrome or the hypothetical detection of homosexuality, the woman’s right to choose must not be infringed upon, whatever the reason for her choice. AMERICA’S EUGENICS PAST The eugenics movement was most prominent in the United States from the early twentieth century through World War II.7 Eugenics, first developed by Francis Galton, stemmed from early knowledge of genetics and a desire among intellectuals to im-prove society.8 Society’s ills were blamed on groups of people who had traits that scientists believed to be inherited, including: disabilities, drug or alcohol addiction, homelessness, and “feeble-mindedness.”9 Backed by scientists, intellectuals, and politicians of the time, many states, beginning with Indiana in 1907, passed laws based on the principles of eugenics.10 By the 1920s, twenty-seven states had codified such laws, most of which called for the mandatory sterilization of certain groups of people.11 While early court cases began to limit sterilization laws, the Supreme Court upheld them in a 1927 case, Buck v. Bell.12 The issue in Buck stemmed from a Virginia court’s decision order-ing the sterilization of eighteen-year old Carrie Buck based on her status as an institutionalized person in the Virginia State Colony for Epi-leptics and Feeble Minded.13 Virginia institutionalized Buck because she was a “deviant” who had given birth to an illegiti-mate child, despite evidence that her pregnancy was the result of a rape.14 Justice Holmes, writing for the eight-justice majority, described Buck as, “the daughter of a feeble minded mother in the same institution, and the mother of an illegitimate feeble minded child,” and determined in an infamous quote that, “[t]hree generations of imbeciles are enough.”15 Ruling in favor of the state, Holmes compared the sterilization to previously up-held mandatory vaccination policies, thus upholding sterilization laws and solidifying eugenics as valid public policy.16 Ulti-mately, over 60,000 people in the United States were lawfully sterilized.17 Only after the horrors of Nazi Germany and the Nuremburg trials, did the United States begin to view eugenics in a negative light.18 However, although sterilization laws were not heavily enforced, states were slow to repeal them; between 1970 and 1974, North Carolina sterilized twenty-three persons.19 The fed-eral government only banned the use of federal funds for sterili-Eugenics is believed to be non-existent in the United States today, but the systemic selective breeding of humans remains a current part of society.Spring 2006 17 zation in 1978 and as of 2004, seven states still had sterilization laws on the books.20 Additionally, Buck has never been over-turned, though a law requiring the sterilization of criminals was overturned in 1942 (largely because criminality was not proven inherited trait).21 The Court has also cited to Buck multiple times, referring to it as valid case law, most notably in Roe v. Wade to support the proposition that the state can impose some limits on the right to privacy.22 The Court’s use of Buck as an example on allowable limits on the right to privacy is far from the historical support of eugenics. Indeed, the Court noted its unfavorable opinion of


ABORTION, EUGENICS, AND A THREAT TO DIVERSITY

Download ABORTION, EUGENICS, AND A THREAT TO DIVERSITY
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view ABORTION, EUGENICS, AND A THREAT TO DIVERSITY and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view ABORTION, EUGENICS, AND A THREAT TO DIVERSITY 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?