Is this the new eugenics?

There was an article in the NYT's called, "Prenatal test puts down syndrome in hard focus." In the article it shows the dwindling number of families that care for DS babies. On the surface, one might think that this is a good thing and that DS is declining. However, the reason DS is fading away is not so pleasant. The article states,

Until this year, only pregnant women 35 and older were routinely tested to see if their fetuses had the extra chromosome that causes DS. As a result many couples were given the diagnosis only at birth. But under a new recomendation from the college of American OBGYN, doctors have begun to offer a new, safer screening procedure to ALL pregnant women, regardless of age.

The article goes on to say that now about 90% of women who are given the DS diagnosis have an abortion.

My questions are the following:

1. Do you find this current practice to be eugenic in nature? If not then why not?
2. Do you consider the practice to be moral?
3. What will the long term implications be if this pracitce is continued? Do you think it will stop congenital defects or will other conditions begin to be dealt with in much the same fashion that are considered to be "undesirable" such as DS? In fact, in places like China and India couples may abort thier unborn child if they are told it is female. What say you?

Originally posted by whodey
There was an article in the NYT's called, "Prenatal test puts down syndrome in hard focus." In the article it shows the dwindling number of families that care for DS babies. On the surface, one might think that this is a good thing and that DS is declining. However, the reason DS is fading away is not so pleasant. The article states,

Until this year, o ...[text shortened]... nd India couples may abort thier unborn child if they are told it is female. What say you?

Originally posted by lepomis
My wife and I did not take the test with any of our children because we would not have aborted the baby if the test was positive. However, humans are weakening the gene pool by saving so many children that would have been uncared for by any other animal. I am also speaking of heart defects,etc...

Originally posted by mochiron
i say it is up to the mother.... and father if there is one at hand

Midwives used to smother deformed children, turn to the parents and say it was stillborn. If a woman wants an abortion for whatever reason then it's her choice.

Fact of the matter is, Down's Syndrome is one of the few genetic defects involving entire chromosomes that the body doesn't reject itself automatically. It's something that nature missed and I don't think people should be judged for deciding not to have a disabled child.

Originally posted by whodey
There was an article in the NYT's called, "Prenatal test puts down syndrome in hard focus." In the article it shows the dwindling number of families that care for DS babies. On the surface, one might think that this is a good thing and that DS is declining. However, the reason DS is fading away is not so pleasant. The article states,

Until this year, o ...[text shortened]... nd India couples may abort thier unborn child if they are told it is female. What say you?

Originally posted by whodey
There was an article in the NYT's called, "Prenatal test puts down syndrome in hard focus." In the article it shows the dwindling number of families that care for DS babies. On the surface, one might think that this is a good thing and that DS is declining. However, the reason DS is fading away is not so pleasant. The article states,

Until this year, o nd India couples may abort thier unborn child if they are told it is female. What say you?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It is indeed the new eugenics. No doubt about it.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
2. Do you consider the practice to be moral?

Bbarr, any ideas ?

Originally posted by bbarr
The practice is both eugenic and permissible. There are any number of good reasons parents may have for not wanting a child with Down's syndrome, just as there are any number of good reasons people may have for not wanting to be parents.

Originally posted by bbarr
EDIT: Since fetuses aren't persons, it makes no sense to ask of a fetus with Down's syndrome whether it has a "life worth living". If your question is actually whether persons with Down's syndrome have lives worth living, the answer is obviously that some do and some don't. You can't divorce the question of what makes a life worth living from how individuals conceive of their own lives.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
"good reasons" ..... sure, Bbarr. There are also "good reasons" to commit genocide.

So, liberalism and eugenics are compatible, correct ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Suppose they are not fetuses anymore but unborn persons of six months and older. In your Neo-Kantian reasoning they are persons in that stage. Then what ? Some do and some don't ? ... and if the parents say they don't then what ?

Originally posted by bbarr
Err on the side of caution.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, there are no good reasons to commit genocide.