To believe that Britain promotes eugenics.

[WriterofDreams]

I am aware this is going to be highly controversial and could upset some people but it's an issue that genuinely concerns me and I'm not just shit-stirring. I do expect to get flamed, but any reasonable argument or debate is very welcome.

I come from Ireland where abortion is illegal. I am fully aware that many Irish women go abroad for abortions so I'm not saying look how great we are we don't abort. However, until I moved to the UK I never heard of the practice of people testing their baby for anomalies and then aborting them if there was something wrong. It genuinely shocked me that a couple who tried to have a baby, went through the sometimes stressful process of ttc, got the longed-for bfp and then lived with the expectation of a baby for many weeks could then go and kill that baby because it had Down Syndrome or some other (non-lifethreatening) genetic condition. I have looked it up on a number of sites and extreme though it may appear I can't get past the feeling that this basically hidden eugenics.

What do you think?

Autism is not a dominant genetic mutation like Downs Syndrome, there is a slight increase in risk associated with certain genotypes. Any test will never be as conclusive as you are making out (dominant diseases are easy to trace, it is not one). What is most likely to happen (down the line, if we are lucky) is a prognostic test that combines genetic and environmental factors, so a prenatal test would say something along the lines of: mum x, you have this variant so should avoid eating carrots or going on roller coasters.

Get a basic understanding of genetic tests before you start waving them around as an argument. Conditions which combine genetic and environmental risks are not investigated and helped by removing the genes (nobody even suggests doing this) - the normal thing to do is remove the environment part of the cause.

people with an ounce of decency/intelligence don't say it about anyone, wnc

What DF just said.

but aborting on the basis of a genetic anomaly foetus is only a (potentially) eugenic idea if that anomaly is hereditary. If it is not hereditary then the abortion is a personal decision made within a family and has no effect on the genetics of the wider population.

Even if the condition is hereditary, an abortion may have nothing to do with eugenics. It may simply be that the family feel they cannot cope, for whatever reason, with the life-long implications of bringing up a disabled child. The morality of that decision is always going to be a controversial topic, but it does not make the decision eugenic.

Agreed Greenstinking,

Runner I worked on the Autism Genome Project as a researcher so I know what I'm talking about. I attended seminars talking about the tests you believe don't exist (perhaps you should email them and let them know of your superior knowledge? I have the lead researchers email address). There I have outed myself.

I left for personal reasons and I went back to teaching.

I don't think I have ever heard anyone suggest that people on benefts should be encouraged to abort their unborn babies on financial grounds.

I hope this wasn't a clumsy attempt to repeat what 2shoes did with her post about the abortion limit - ie highlight the way in which we think about disabled children as disposable. If so, it didn't work - there are no parallels to be drawn between the decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy on medical grounds, and the disapproval levelled at people who have children without the personal means to support them.

I have a genetic mutation cant be seen. Only effects me during pregnancy.

I think we all have genetic mutations, redflag. It's part of the natural variation within the species.

Everyone will have different circumstances and thoughts tbh. I think (hope) wnc is playing devils advocate here (I really hope so) and posing a horrific question about how far society could go if allowed.

Because everyone's circumstances are so different then it is vitally important that women receive clear advice and support around the whole area of testing. I elected NOT to test as a Mum who had suffered infertility. No matter what happened I would care for my child. He is fine (ASD but fine) and will grow up and work in society and contribute. The thought that anyone could suggest a termination for autism is shocking to me.
As an ex-midwife I have also seen one or teo cases where termination was at 30+ weeks in London - something I found very hard to deal with at the time but which I could not begin to compare with what the parents had to deal with.

This is the only post I'm going to put down in response to wotnochocs post. Currently it is possible to identify genetically who is likely to get certain cancers. Obviously people with cancer are a huge drain on the state, and the all-powerful tax payer. So if I said that from tomorrow all babies have to be tested for the cancer genes and aborted if they have them, would you agree?

Oh sorry Pumpkin, he was mentioned earlier, it's James Watson

Agreed Damsel.

That must have been a horrific thing to witness, my son was stillborn at 37 weeks, i would have given anything to see him move and scream, this is the very reason i am so upset people have to go through this stage of termination. And gives me the opinion, if you have gone that far, just see what happens.

I am not suggesting anyone do this, its just how i personally would think.

"So if I said that from tomorrow all babies have to be tested for the cancer genes and aborted if they have them, would you agree?"

you're just asking wotnochocks this question? I don't want to answer it unless it's been put out there to everyone.

WriterofDreams

They already do this with ivf (not sure if it happens in this country) And discarding fertilised eggs that have certain genetic traits. Eg likely hood of Brest cancer.

Ok learning something new all the time, redflag. I didn't realise genetic testing in IVF is so extensive.

I was asking wotnochocs but you can answer if you like DF

Yes it is, if the parents have also say lost a child to a certain condition, they will also test for that. (sorry to butt in)

Like i said i don't know if they do this in this country, but i remember them talking about it on the wright stuff and feeling really disgusted about it.

Barging in on mainly-unread thread: I am pro-CHOICE. This means a woman's right to choose whether to bring a pregnancy to birth or to terminate it, regardless of the reasons. Choice also means fertility assistance, medical care for distressed foetuses, premature babies and treatment for pregnancy-related illness. Choice means choosing to facilitate births that Nature would have terminated, as well as terminating pregnancies that Nature may have continued. IMO there should not be any parameters on this - choice is choice, not "choice if everybody else thinks it's OK".

Choice is the antithesis of eugenics. The OP's theory is preosterous, but this issue can never be over-discussed.

With the disability allowances about/are crucified I would imagine some people could not afford to have a child with severe disabilities.

Personally I would have terminated if my children had had abnormalities, I has a OSCAR at 13 weeks and so it would have been very early. With DS2 I had a CVS at 18 weeks and was still prepared to terminate if anything was found.

Eugenics is not at play here, at all. If you want to talk eugenics you're best off looking at Sweden or China, amongst others.

"So if I said that from tomorrow all babies have to be tested for the cancer genes and aborted if they have them, would you agree?"

ok then.

No I would not agree that it was right to force people to test or to make them abort. However, I would think it was ok to give them the choice.

Hi Ghoul, there are a couple of issues that have been brought up in the course of the thread,
I'd like to hear what you think about them.

1. What do you think of the fact that non-disabled foetuses can be aborted only up to 24 weeks but disabled foetuses can be aborted up to term? My view is that it sends the subtle message that disabled children deserve fewer rights.

2. One poster pointed out a case where he and his partner chose not to get the triple test and because they were over 35 they had to see a social worker, the implication being that they were not making the right choice as dictated by the state. Doesn't this imply that the state is trying promote abortion in the case of disabled children?

Thanks for your quickly reply :)

1. I support termination without parameters. I could waffle on for ages about this, but suffice to say I believe reproductive choice should be the mother's to make, without restrictions.

2. I believe these choices - to continue, to terminate and even to TTC - should be made with full information. The mother has the right to choose balanced counselling; afaik this is actually offered in all such situations but I may be wrong (or it may be one of those things that doesn't always happen). However, it wouldn't be eugenics or coercion unles they were actually forced to test and abort.

• my typing was a bit too "quickly"!

My worry with something like that DF is that you have a slippery slope. What if a test becomes available for mental illness or intelligence? Do you agree with designer babies?

1. I'll answer. Some disabilities make the whole parent thing a completely different game. I know of at least one woman who had a very late abortion as the baby would have died prior to birth anyway.

2. No it shows that the state think parents are stupid if they don't want as much information as possible prior to a child being born.

The state is not promoting abortion in any way shape of form.