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?.