Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Genetic Screening Encouraging More Abortions, Social Worker Warns
AFA News ^ | March 17, 2004 | Fred Jackson and Jenni Parker

Posted on 03/17/2004 8:43:43 PM PST by Cedar

Genetic Screening Encouraging More Abortions, Social Worker Warns -- She Sees Health Care Moving Toward Eugenics Mentality By Fred Jackson and Jenni Parker March 17, 2004

(AgapePress) - In Canada, a University of Victoria professor says her country's health care system is sliding toward something resembling Nazi-style eugenics.

In a recent speech, Tanis Doe, a professor of social work, told her audience that the widespread practice of pre-screening pregnant women and their offspring for genetic diseases has turned into a system for purging society of the disabled not unlike eugenics programs of the past.

Eugenics has been defined as the science of the hereditary improvement of the human race through systematic and controlled selective breeding. In the late 1800s Darwinists held to the belief that eugenics would guarantee the prevalence of "more suitable races." Such ideas have been incorporated into several supremacist ideologies, including the Nazi concepts of the so-called "superman" and the "master race."

Such programs have inevitably led to exploitation in the past, as when it was used to discourage reproduction among those with "undesirable" traits, or with mental or physical disabilities. Even in America, eugenics-based thinking led to the forced sterilization of "defectives," which became law in many states in the early 20th century, and as a result, 15,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized in the U.S. before the laws permitting such barbarism were repealed.

But Doe is making a comparison between the genocidal spirit of Nazi eugenics and genetic screening -- something that some public health advocates are calling an aspect of the new eugenics movement.

Doe told the Globe and Mail newspaper that women obtaining genetic screening are often expected -- and pressured -- to abort their pregnancies when a fetal abnormality or disability is diagnosed. And the professor says there is widespread acceptance in the western world for the idea that the disabled unborn should not be brought to full term.

She noted that in the case of diagnoses for Down Syndrome, "about 89 percent [of parents] in Canada and 90 percent in the U.S. opt to terminate the pregnancy."

The Globe and Mail quotes Doe as saying even while the rate of prenatal diagnoses of disabilities does not appear to be rising, she is convinced that the scientific search for genetic markers for disabilities will expand the range of prenatal screening and, as a result, the number of babies that are aborted will increase.

Dick Sobsey, the director of the University of Alberta's Developmental Disability Centre is quoted as saying that Doe's comparison between modern genetic pre-screening and the Nazi eugenics program, though likely to be considered controversial, is historically sound. However, since the Nazi eugenics movement fell into disrepute when their horrors were made public, Sobsey believes, "there was a move to a less direct form of eugenics."

According to the Christian Medical and Dental Associations, the "new negative eugenics" encourages -- and in many U.S. states, mandates -- prenatal screening to "identify genetic defects or other malformations in unborn children." Doctors may face legal liability if they fail to offer prospective parents genetic counseling, presenting them with the option of aborting a child with Down’s syndrome and an ever lengthening list of other conditions.

The organization's position literature notes that in interactions between would-be parents and the medical community, and sometimes even in the law, there is a presumed “right” to reproduce and have a normal child, and that right is understood by many to trump any ethical concerns.

© 2004 AgapePress all rights reserved


TOPICS: Canada; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; canada; geneticscreening

1 posted on 03/17/2004 8:43:43 PM PST by Cedar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cedar
It's only a matter of time before the homos and the feminazis come out for some form of restrictions on abortion--to prevent sex selection/sexual persuasion selection.
2 posted on 03/17/2004 8:48:10 PM PST by rottndog (woof)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
Irony bites the FemiNazis: In China and India sonographic identification of fetal sex results in abortion and infanticide of females on a massive scale.
3 posted on 03/17/2004 8:51:15 PM PST by FormerACLUmember (JF'nK = major waste of oxygen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember
In China and India sonographic identification of fetal sex results in abortion and infanticide of females on a massive scale.

Do people there not want their sons to get married? Or do they want a society of unwed males?

4 posted on 03/17/2004 9:36:19 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
I've watched liberals dissolve into a shapeless goo when I ask them, "so you favor abortion-on-demand under all circumstances, yes?"

"Yes - the government has no business interfering in a woman's right to choose."

"So, if a 'gay gene' is ever discovered, documented and identifiable via a genetic marker, you would have no issue with a woman choosing to terminate a pregancy solely because her unborn child bore that marker?"

"Well I er uh you uh she um uh um uh..."

The first liberal-initiated abortion restrictions will be drafted within hours of the discovery of a "gay gene."
5 posted on 03/17/2004 9:39:18 PM PST by Objective Reality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
In China and India sonographic identification of fetal sex results in abortion and infanticide of females on a massive scale. Do people there not want their sons to get married? Or do they want a society of unwed males?

Male son(s) are the Social Security System of backward nations to take care of old folks.

6 posted on 03/17/2004 9:41:48 PM PST by FormerACLUmember (JF'nK = major waste of oxygen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Do people there not want their sons to get married? Or do they want a society of unwed males?

Abject patriarchy. Sons are valuable, daughters are not. Daughters have to be dowried, sons don't. Sons get all of their wive's property, wives get nothing. I forget the current ratio in China, but it's something insane already, like 30:1 males to females. Worth googling.

7 posted on 03/17/2004 9:42:04 PM PST by Objective Reality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Objective Reality
Er, wait, no, I'd be, uh, totally wrong there. Current ratio is, ahem, 1.2 to 1, according to:

http://www.euthanasia.com/china-ra.html

I think in the cities it's much higher, though.
8 posted on 03/17/2004 9:43:58 PM PST by Objective Reality
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Objective Reality
Daughters have to be dowried, sons don't.

Not for long, if birthrate trends continue methinks. If the male/female ratio in the 15-40 cohort gets beyond 5:1, I would think prospective male suitors would start offering to pay females' fathers very handsomely for their daughers' hands in marriage.

9 posted on 03/17/2004 9:45:04 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Objective Reality
She noted that in the case of diagnoses for Down Syndrome, "about 89 percent [of parents] in Canada and 90 percent in the U.S. opt to terminate the pregnancy."

That statistic seems hard to believe...I've never been pregnant before, but doesn't the test for DS come in the second or third trimester. What do these parents who choose to kill their babies with DS tell their families- The baby was defective, so I got rid of it? Or do they pretend to have suffered a miscarriage? I can't believe there are people out there who would admit to getting rid of a child for a non-life threatening birth defect such as Down's Syndrome.

10 posted on 03/17/2004 9:46:35 PM PST by LWalk18
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Objective Reality
Er, wait, no, I'd be, uh, totally wrong there. Current ratio is, ahem, 1.2 to 1...

Great--now you tell me after I just wrote my last post. Oh well. I guess even 5:1 would make things pretty ridiculous.

Still, it would seem that an imbalance in the male/female ratio would cause girls to become more valuable.

11 posted on 03/17/2004 9:47:38 PM PST by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Objective Reality
Actually China and South Korea are the first large populations in history to have more males than females. It has only shifted from 49% male/51% female to 51% male/49% female, however this slight shift in percentage is tens of millions difference in actual numbers.
The really sad part is that MILLIONS of born baby girls are actually murdered so as not to exceed the government's limit on children. Yet more butchery that can be laid at the feet of Socialism.
12 posted on 03/17/2004 9:48:49 PM PST by rottndog (woof!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cedar
When I was pregnant with my youngest child I was 43, and my doctor was encouraging me to get an amnio so that I would able to tell if I was having a Down's Syndrome baby. When I said that even if I had the amnio and it came out positive for Down's I wasn't going to have an abortion, he sent me to a genetic counsoler to give me all the horror stories. Since I already had two special-needs kids, I didn't scare easily. Finally I changed to a pro-life obstetrician, and he said that if I wasn't prepared to have an abortion, that I should avoid all testing, because if anything came back positive, the insurance company would pay for me to have an abortion, but not to continue my pregnancy. I don't know if this is true for all insurance companies, but I followed his advice and my baby came out fine. Even if he hadn't though, I still wouldn't regret having him.
13 posted on 03/17/2004 9:55:18 PM PST by happymom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: happymom
Good story. Bless you. I too am the parent of a couple of special needs children. Wouldn't have given them up for anything in the world.
14 posted on 03/17/2004 10:04:11 PM PST by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: supercat
"Do people there not want their sons to get married? Or do they want a society of unwed males?"

Yes, the fools, evidently they can't think this through. At least the Chinese can point a finger at their dictatorial gov't and it's "one child" policy, but the Indians have no such excuse.

Probably the worse society would be one of unwed males, but yet that is what they are developing.

It's time to bring back that old margarine ad from the 1970s with the tagline: It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!


15 posted on 03/18/2004 12:00:07 AM PST by jocon307 (The dems don't get it, the American people do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson