I agree, Melinda; it's already happening at a frightening rate. How many babies with Down Syndrome will be born (in the industrialised world) in 20 years time? I also agree with Julian; eugenics (or whatever he wants to call it) is driven more by market forces than the State now. A survey of US tertiary students showed more than half would take medication or treatment to enhance their physical or mental performance if they could. Fewer and fewer seem to have problems with this approach and getting the edge over others seems to know no bounds. The problem is, for good or bad, more and more in society are willing, or at the very least, accepting, of such so-called "advances". I personally believe we're pretty well made. Exactly what is it about our lot that invites enhancement? Is being well not enough anymore? I think you may be a voice in the wilderness? Or will the pendulum swing back? What can ethically be done if the vast majority clamour for soon-to-be possible "improvements"? And not only themselves but their children too?

There is a difference between wanting to "improve" normal healthy human beings and a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy that is profoundly disabled or deformed. Women should certainly not be forced or pressured to abort disabled children or be ridiculed for electing not to do so but women SHOULD be informed of serious deformities in their unborn foetues and the impact of these conditions on the quality of life of the child and also of the woman, her partner and any other children they may have. Women will then be able to make a truly informed choice.

Having a disabled child is challenging at the best of times, imagine how much more so if you KNEW while pregnant that your child would be born profoundly disabled and were not allowed the choice to abort. It's all very well for Tankard Reist to argue that "imperfect" babies should be valued and accepted but no one has the right to force a woman to carry on with a pregnancy she wished to terminate and then go through the heartache of raising an unwanted and profoundly deformed child.

Having just now read all of Tankard Reist's previous articles on OO, she seems to completely disclaim the possibility that women can ever legitimately and freely choose abortion. The undertone of her articles is always that abortion is a reluctant choice women are forced into by social/cultural/familial/whatever pressure, that women are abused and decieved by the "abortion industry" and that abortion will always end up a decision that the hapless woman will regret. Is propogating this inaccurate, patternalistic and offensive stereotype doing anything to help the poor vulnerable women she professes to want to protect from the clutches of the evil doctors?!

ON a slightly different tact - I wonder what would happen to the world if only the so-called 'perfect' people were born. From my experience, I have found that those who experience diversity when growing up - those who have something to overcome (from something as simple as being the 'ugly but interesting' friend all the way up) - are the same people who go on to excel at the world.

To take this further, many brilliant people who have changed the world - from Isaac Newton to Jackson Pollock to Napaleon Bonoparte - have suffered from mental illness, so would breeding it out give us an immediate impression of superiority, but a lasting effect of weakening our race. There is one school of thought that suggests that mental illness such as bipolar disorder has remained within our species to allow for the sometimes extreme creative thought that often comes with it. While there are of course some problems with this view, it leads to some interesting questions. If no one has to fight against adversity, what will drive them to excel? If you are already perfect, why try for more?

Have a nice day.

Suse

I have not read Professor Julian Savulescu’s SMH article but in his paper “Procreative beneficence: Why we should select the best children”
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/BIOT0269-9702~15~5&6~251/251.pdf he seems to be arguing that we should carry out a form of social engineering through selecting our children, even if it “maintains or increases social inequality”.

This selection process can be done through prenatal testing and termination of pregnancy, and also through IVF (ie in vitro fertilisation) and PGD (ie preimplantation genetic diagnosis).

I understand that humans, (as a species), have not physically changed much for many thousands of years. There are some variations between the different races (eg skin colour, size, stature etc), but quite often these physical differences have slowly occurred as natural adaptations to the different physical environments these races have lived in.

There are also variations between the different races in their belief systems, attitudes, customs, knowledge bases, behaviours etc, but for the most part, these differences have slowly occurred also, because of discoveries about the world we live in, through education systems, and also through propaganda systems, (and I might add that repeated use of terms such as “woman’s choice” and “women and their children” are basically forms of propaganda http://www.propagandacritic.com/)

Technology can dramatically speed up these changes, and governments can use modern technology to create their ideal citizens, which would basically be obedient workers and consumers that pay large amounts of tax and don't cost the state much, and also good warriors http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/22/AR2005062202305.html

There are also non-government groups that can use modern technology to create their own ideal citizen, but all this becomes accelerated change, and for the most part it becomes a minimization of the human genetic pool.

If the human species is now so knowledgeable, we should have learnt by now not to limit natural genetic pools.

Is the decision to terminate a pregnancy where a child will be born severely deformed or disabled made easier by that fact? No.

Do parents (and mothers, who seem to cop all the blame for these things) base their decision on a "cost-benefit" analysis? Absolutely not.

Should women, who discover that their child is severely disabled and has no prospect of extended life or life-quality outside the confines of the womb be punished by others for making the most difficult of decisions? No.

Tankard-Reist's work has centred on the negative outcomes of women's abortion experiences, but fails to recognise the central tenet of this decision: it's not a decision made easily or a discussion had lightly.

If, as Tankard-Reist believes, abortion is wrong, there should be no grey areas such as she presents here. This slippery argument based on the most difficult of decisions, made by less than one per cent of all women seeking pregnancy terminations, is misleading and cruel.

Selecting progeny on the basis of appearance without regard for the myriad complex genetics which underpin health and function is a very dangerous path to take.

It has been shown in everything from corn to dog breeding that over time, selecting (predominately) for appearance leads to the disappearance of very important genes which are essential to good health.

A whole host of deliterious conditions then come to the fore as these hidden and not readily observable traits are bred out of the gene pool. Eventually we will leave behind beautiful corpses.

Seether,
It appears that minimal data is being collected on abortion in Australia, but abortion clinics will carry out an abortion if the woman has proof of pregnancy and a Medicare card, with no questions asked about why she wants an abortion. Because of this it becomes difficult to determine why there are so many abortions, and it becomes difficult to determine whether all those abortions are moral, ethical, legal etc.

I think what the author is arguing against is the philosophies of people such as Professor Savulescu who advocate the use of abortion, IVF, PDG etc for altering the human race so as to produce “new breeds of humans”. see "Bring on the super humans"
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Bring-on-the-super-humans/2005/06/08/1118123901403.html?from=moreStories

They advocate these methods for such things as choosing the sex of the baby (ie if a woman becomes pregnant with a baby boy and she wants a baby girl then she can abort the baby boy, and there are groups in society that advocate the wide scale abortion of baby boys), for choosing the intelligence of the baby (ie some geneticists believe that intelligence is associated with DNA, and it can be enhanced by altering DNA, but this maybe a fallacy), as well as for choosing the babies physical appearance and even sporting ability (which can be achieved by manipulating DNA).

All this becomes “made to order” babies, and how Professor Savulescu won this year’s Australian Society for Medical Research medal is beyond my comprehension.

A woman who freely decides to have a child she knows is disabled is courageous and her decision should be both accepted and supported.
A woman who freely decides not to have a child she knows is disabled ( and I know this is the decision I would have taken) should also have her decision accepted and supported.
Rushing to judgement about whether either decision is moral, ethical or reasonable by other people is neither helpful nor realistic.
As to people aborting boys, it may happen, but most gender based abortions, particularly in places like India and China are of girls. In China, if they don't abort, they abandon or, perhaps, practice infanticide.
And that is the problem. You cannot force someone to accept, love and care for a child just because you think it is moral, ethical or reasonable that they should. Sometimes, individuals decide abortion is the lesser of two evils, and who are we to judge them?

enaj,

should we judge, probably not, should we assist, definitely, but, can we argue for and encourage a moral position? One person's infanticide is another's abortion. In the former, at least someone else can pick up and care for the abandoned child...

Argue for and encourage, yes, on a general level, at least. Though, I, for one, would be very careful about doing anything but listen when talking to someone facing such a horrible decision. I have, in fact, sat with a friend as she agonised over just such a situation, in the face of such distress, I offered no opinion or advice at all, I simply supported her in what she decided to do. But any attempt to legislate, punish or condemn such women I would never agree with.
And I simply can't agree that abortion is just a different form of infanticide. When a woman miscarries a child (as I have done) she grieves, but no-one else really notices or cares. When a woman loses a new born child (as I nearly did) the impact on the mother is immeasurably greater and the rest of the world recognises the difference. And I realise I am talking from the point of view of the mother, not the child, but she is the conscious human being here, a new born or a foetus cannot "know" the difference between life and death. If the mother dies soon after giving birth, the baby does not grieve for her, and as the child grows, even then they can only mourn the idea of a mother. Comparing levels of pain is not pleasant, but I think it has to be taken into account.

Enaj,
I would agree that aborting the foetus based on its gender is morally wrong and should be criminalized, and there does seem to be this type of activity occurring in places such as India and China, but of relevance is a kit that has been recently released onto the market in the US called the Baby Gender Mentor kit which can be purchased by the public, and can be used to determine the sex of the foetus from as early as 5 weeks.

However the ethics of using this kit are being questioned ''The sex test is very controversial because it's not clear that you want to broadly facilitate the ability of people to sex-select embryos at a very early stage," he said. ''It's potentially abusable."
http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/women/articles/2005/06/27/test_reveals_gender_early_in_pregnancy/

I can only imagine the misuse of this kit if it became widely available in places such as China or India, or was being used by feminists (remembering that there need not be any reasons given by a woman to have an abortion in Australia, and this can be simply tested by phoning up an abortion clinic and making an appointment for an abortion).

With IVF technology, it would become possible to even select the gender at the fertilization stage, as well as selecting various other attributes for the child. (IE “made to order” babies.)

There is very little monitoring and control of the abortion industry, and I would think that this will become the same for the IVF industry also, and I would think that there is a great danger that both industries will become money driven in the future, with very few ethics being incorporated.

Not having any children (or any coming in the foreseeable future) I’ve not been made aware of these options to parents now. Given what I have read, there are two points I would raise:

First, I agree that a parent has the right to decide on the quality of life that an in-coming child may have, dependant on their current genetic disposition (i.e. they have an obvious deformity, illness or condition). If you were told “you can live but you have to have no hearing, can’t communicate with people and no control over your bowels” would you come into the world? Who, if not the parents have some right to say what constitutes a better life for an unborn child? Now let’s not go the path of Pro-choice v Right to Life. This is a discussion on the concept of genetic enhancement. Lets stay within the bounds for now!

Secondly, this choice must be balanced against gratuitous “farming” of children based on a perceived notion of ‘better’. We live in a world where image is everything these days. Beautiful reigns over brains and fashion is the new God. Sad really and speaks lowly of our world. Although a grey area and easily manipulated, I am of the opinion that there must be a benchmark as to what constitutes “obvious deformity, illness or condition” – I am sure that can be left for another discussion. But if anyone has seen the film GATACA, I think gives a good perspective on what the possibilities of a genetics-based society could be like.

I would point out some of the world’s greatest figures – Hawking, Beethoven, Michelangelo, and Van Gogh. Leaves room for some thought though, doesn’t it?.

Timkins,

I really wish you would stop running the line that all a woman need do if she wants to have an abortion is ring the clinic and make an appointment and, tra-la-la, that will be it (might just squeeze it in between a facial and a massage, and all those other selfish things nasty "career women" like to do).

Firstly, you present the doctor-patient relationship in an overly simplistic way. I'm assuming you've never had a pre-termination GP appointment and therefore wouldn't know who is asked what.

Secondly, it is an option which (in NSW for instance) is increasingly only available to those who can afford the $500-odd fee associated with it.

Thirdly, the deception of women who are trying to access balanced information about their options on continuing a pregnancy are continually made complex by organisations purporting to give "pregnancy advice" who refuse to canvas a full range of options with women who ring them. I say congratulations to the Democrats, who have introduced Federal legislation to make these services more transparent.

Lastly: none of these arguments about the availability of abortion services apply to women seeking terminations of pregnancy due to severe physical abnormalities, abnormalities which can only be detected using ultrasound at a much later stage in pregnancy. Terminations performed beyond 14 weeks are, as I have said, extremely rare (less than one per cent) and in every case, are subject to extraordinary consultative processes and referrals.

Back on topic: I do agree that creating a child to your exacting physical specifications is fraught.

However, like enaj, I'm not willing to sit in judgement of parents who make the hardest decision they will ever have to make in deciding whether to continue with a pregnancy - anyone who has got to the stage where these tests are being done is having a child that is wanted: the questions they ask themselves in evaluating their options are not easy to answer and I don't envy them that decision.

Seether,
Unfortunately it is a fact that there are abortion clinics in Australian that will carry out an abortion without referral from a doctor.

“To make an appointment phone the clinic closest to your area and staff will give you an appointment at a suitable date and time. It is not necessary to have a referral from your doctor however it is important that you have had a pregnancy test, have written proof of your blood group and Rh factor. If you don't have this, blood tests can be arranged by the clinic.” http://www.abortionclinicgoldcoast.com/100189.php

Your insinuations that I regard women who have an abortion as "career women" are your words only, and I would be asking you not to make such unsubstantiated inferences and insinuations in the future.

I would think it statistically unlikely that 2 out of 5 pregnancies are aborted because of severely deformed foetuses, but it is impossible to clearly tell what is occurring because so few records are being kept regards abortion, which is a very serious matter when so many other medical records are kept.

Within the area of genetically modified children, it can become a slippery slope. The system can start off by saying that there should be genetically modified children to overcome the possibility of deformity (although what constitutes deformity is subjective), and then the system can progress to genetic “enhancements” for the child.

It is all very dangerous stuff, because manipulation of DNA would have a sea-saw effect. Artificially enhance some part of a person’s genetic make-up, and this would likely negatively affect some other part. Nature has found a balance over many 10,000’s of years, and it would be very unwise for man to interfere with that balance.

btw - has anyone actually met anyone who is perfect? i sure haven't.

I’ve not read any of Julian Savulescu’s articles. My comments are based on the information & posted commentary, I have read upon coming across this site.

Let’s not pretend that ‘not being perfect’ (most would agree this’s impossible), is even in the same league as having a disability that is recognisable by an individuals society / community.

Do any of us seek to be accepted, valued, & seen as independent & able, only by our own families & loved ones?

Living with a disability, for most, is an uphill battle, with unfulfilled acceptance by the community, regardless of how hard an individual (or their family) may work to realise the same life responsibilities, goals & aspirations as members of the community who do not have a recognisable disability (the majority). - For many people with a disability, life does not enable a chosen career (if any) that supports a chosen lifestyle, a circle of friends, a loving & sexual relationship, anonymity to go about one’s daily business, freedom of choice to ignore or engage in matters of personal, societal or world matters.

Should the focus of debate be on the benefit to individual parents of having & loving a child, regardless of that child’s potential for a reasonably ‘fulfilling’ life? Should the focus of debate be on the advantages or financial disadvantages to a society that embraces a ‘diverse’ community?

I think there’s a difference between knowing & loving an individual family member based on their capacities, abilities, values, foibles & personality as opposed to an unborn, unknown entity whose only relationship to its parents is ‘blood’ & a dream of what might be.

If asked the retrospective question, would the parents of a child with a disability have chosen a child who does not have a disability?

I wish that Australia (and the world) had different priorities in what I believe ‘really’ matters. However, I’m concerned that we are forcing people who are known to have a disability prior to birth, to be ‘pioneers’ in challenging our community to accept / embrace diversity, at a significant cost to themselves.

I would like to venture - Do we really need to worry? For every Julian Savulescu of whom I had never heard until I read this forum article, there are many institutions working on saving the lives of babies born with abnormalities or suffering from abnormal births; charities collecting for and endeavouring to improve the conditions of sufferers of diseases such as cerebral palsy, osteo arthritis, Downs sydrome, etc. etc.

Every day that I am home and every night at dinner collectors phone for donations and sometimes we donate, like the responsible citizens that we are.

Also, every night on TV we have our emotions challenged: by stories about 'suffer the little children', who mostly seem to come from normal nuclear families. I am guessing poor people don't generate as much sympathy for fund raising, not that poor people don't have the same problems.
Occasionally by the exceptions too, where some darling tot has just survived the impossible through the intervention of modern medicine, and who, we are told, 'will now go on to live a normal life'. How amazing!

And then there are test tube babies and the IVF programs where couples who would not normally have a child are now able even though there are children available to be adopted.
I can't believe that noone has Sometimes wondered about the future survival of fitness of the human race.

Un natural selection is alive and well and will continue to thrive in our midst; a leading IVF scientist over 20 years ago advised a gathering at which I was present that if it can be done, when it comes to scientific advances and experimentation, it will be done - he has been proven right - albeit slowly the doors to eugenics are opening.
The scientific imperative that drives researchers to see how far they can push the envelope with only scant reference to the community is now coupled with rampant consumerism - babies are a commodity, they are an investmetn in the future and in many cases an accessory we include in our array of possessions after the house the car the entertainment centre and the boat - and because we have so few these days they'd better be good ones - or we send them back or find some one to sue.