Resolved that: It Shall Be Ethical To Abort The Entity In The Womb For Gender Choice Reasons.

[Selene]

Under the current Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), a ban on abortions based on the gender of the fetus. The bill would have imposed jail time on medical professionals who terminated pregnancies if they had “knowledge” that the woman sought the abortion because of the gender of the fetus.

As the Law Library of Congress has noted:

After abortion laws were tightened, technological innovation revolutionized medicine, with prenatal diagnosis being one such area. This new technology has immense potential to allow parents to avoid genetically oriented problems, but its use has had the effect of making it relatively easy for parents to opt for abortion as a means of sex selection when the parents did not wish to have a child of a particular sex. This comparative summary provides an analysis of laws on the subject of sex selection and abortion in

Australia

,

Canada

,

India

, and

New Zealand

.

While Australia has banned sex selection throughout the country, the States of Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia have specifically legislated on it. The Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council has published guidelines that prohibit sex selection unless it is undertaken to prevent an inheritable genetic disease.

Canada has not prohibited any types of abortion, by law, since 1988. While abortion for the specific purpose of sex selection is likewise not prohibited, Canadian physicians typically will not perform an abortion after the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy unless the woman’s health is in serious jeopardy. Canada does not, however, allow reproductive technology to be used for sex selection of the fetus.

The laws of India and New Zealand on abortion are closely similar, in that they both provide that causing an abortion is an offense unless it is done to save the life of the woman. Abortion is allowed when, subject to the prescribed length of the pregnancy, the continuance of the pregnancy may cause grave injury to the woman’s physical or mental health, or there is substantial risk that the child-to-be would be seriously handicapped if the pregnancy were to continue.

Indian laws do not, under any circumstance, allow sex determination tests to be undertaken with the intent to terminate the life of a fetus developing in the mother’s womb, unless there are other absolute indications for termination of the pregnancy as specified by law. Any act causing the termination of the pregnancy of a normal fetus would amount to feticide, and in addition to rendering the physician criminally liable, is considered professional misconduct on his part, leading to his penal censure.

The use of reproductive technology in New Zealand is banned when it is used for sex selection with a view to causing an abortion.

The ethical question that I wish to raise, is shall it be ethical, in Objectivist philosophy, or, in philosophy in general to abort an entity in the womb for gender selection. or, for other selection parameters, e.g., the woman finds out that the genetic profile of the "potential" child is red headed and pre-disposed to obesity?

Adam

[Dennis Hardin]

Fat basher.

I have reported you to Governor Christie's office.

(Shame on you. Everyone knows it's a glandular malfunction.)

[Selene]

Fat basher.

I have reported you to Governor Christie's office.

(Shame on you. Everyone knows it's a glandular malfunction.)

I will have you know that "Fat Basher" is a very cool name for a Newark Rapper...don't you think?

[Dennis Hardin]

If scientists detect a gene with a proven connection to becoming a rap artist, I would consider that a valid justification for abortion.

I might even support a law making abortion mandatory in such cases.

[caroljane]

O, all too seriocomic.

Babies were always aborted and always will be. But backward lookers as we always must be, tradition bound, today and tomorrow focused, and wildly endowed by science-based options, as a species in many populous areas we now skew a man-woman ratio terribly askew. In very few years so many men will never find wives , not in India or Xinuan == stay unmated? Exculturate? Unintended consequences will be important.

[studiodekadent]

Fat basher. I have reported you to Governor Christie's office. (Shame on you. Everyone knows it's a glandular malfunction.)

I'm not sure how serious you're being, but there is an extremely strong case for the proposition that obesity is, for very many people, something they are biologically disposed to.

There is also a significant case that a lot of the disdain towards the obese is really just the moralization of aesthetic preferences, and/or the prejudicial assumption that people with larger builds are dumb, lazy and have poor impulse control. There are many people that are "overweight" or "obese" (under current clinical BMI-based definitions) that are in fact perfectly healthy.

"Personal Responsibility" => "It's all your fault, tubby!" => "Get to the gym you dumb lazy slob!" is an abuse of the concept of "personal responsibility" to serve scarcely-justifiable moralized aesthetic preferences. I'm not accusing you of peddling this logic, since I may have misread your intentions behind your post.

And no, I do not support soda taxes/fat taxes/nanny-statism/suing "big food" or any of that Food Fascist crap.

Anyway, sorry for that digression.

The ethical question that I wish to raise, is shall it be ethical, in Objectivist philosophy, or, in philosophy in general to abort an entity in the womb for gender selection. or, for other selection parameters, e.g., the woman finds out that the genetic profile of the "potential" child is red headed and pre-disposed to obesity? Adam

Assuming we're before the point of fetal viability (which is roughly the start of the last trimester, IIRC... and I am pro-choice before this point. After this point, it is arguable that since the fetus can survive and grow and thrive post-eviction-from-womb into a fully developed human being, it has the moral status of a dependent infant), I wouldn't call the abortion itself necessarily immoral.

But this is a complex issue. Objectivist philosophy, so far, has actually not focused much on the question of how intentions/rationales behind actions would affect the moral status of the action. Questions like these ('motives vs. consequences') are really products of the Deontology vs. Consequentialism debate. Objectivist ethical philosophy is a Teleological-Eudaimonistic Virtue Ethics system; it is neither strictly Deontological or Consequentialist. There are elements of both (consideration of the reasoning behind choosing a specific course of action, as well as looking at the consequences thereof), but even still the emphasis of the system is on cultivating certain virtues rather than providing a set of "do X, do Y" directives.

Basically, the question has no simple answer. I'll try to provide some thoughts.

First, I'll assume the selective abortion is not a late-term abortion. We'll assume the fetus is not viable. This means the abortion itself cannot (in my reasoning) be judged a violation of rights.

Let's assume the abortion is motivated by sex selection reasons. I don't think in and of itself this is automatically bad. Let's look at some cases;

1) A radical misandrist-feminist aborts a male fetus because she wants a daughter and because she hates men. We'd all agree the motive here is virulently bigoted.

2) A woman already has a son. She falls pregnant a second time, in the hope of having a daughter. The fetus is male. She aborts because she and her partner wish for one child of each sex. Is this necessarily an irrational motive? People in general relate better to those that they identify with and biological sex is an important (although not the only) component of this; ceteris paribus, men often crave male company just as women often crave female company ("guys nights out" and "girls nights out" are clear examples). The parents might thus believe a gender-balanced family would be the happiest kind of family for them; no parent would be the 'odd one out' owing to biological sex (similar reasoning could also apply to parents wanting same-sex siblings, for the siblings' sake).

3) A woman is pregnant with a female fetus in a society with a strong "son preference." In this society, females in general suffer a very large degree of systemic unequal treatment which disadvantages their life prospects. She might even be blamed and punished for not 'producing' an 'heir.' As such, she aborts the female fetus out of a belief that, in her specific culture, her potential daughter's happiness would be extremely elusive and that her own safety may be imperiled by producing a daughter rather than a son. Assume she cannot leave this society.

Now, I think we can make a comparative judgment that scenario 1's manhater-woman is acting out of bigotry against an entire class of human beings, and thus scenario 1's woman much more open to moral criticism than scenario 2 or scenario 3's woman.

Scenario 2's woman (or couple) is operating from an attempt to optimize the gender composition of their family, with the aim of improving their own happiness.

Scenario 3's woman is operating from the motivations of self-preservation and, quite arguably, pre-emptive mercy towards her potential daughter. This woman's society is an horrible place for women, and as much as we would want her to go all Roark and say "screw social standards, I'm having my daughter," this option is probably not avaliable to her.

Even within a single type of motivations for abortion (sex selection), there are multiple different rationales for doing so, and I think the above hypotheticals demonstrate that not all of these rationales are morally equal.

Let's look at some more selective abortions... in this case we'll continue with Adam's examples of hair color and predisposition to obesity.

As for predisposition to obesity, a selective abortion to kill off a potential fatty does seem to have problems. If motivated by anti-fat bias (i.e. prejudice that a larger person is probably a dumb lazy indulgent slob, mere moralized aesthetic distaste for fat), I'd certainly hold the mother in contempt. Predisposition to obesity, after all, doesn't guarantee obesity. It merely increases the likelihood, and as time goes on we develop better weight loss medications and treatments to control this.

On the other hand, if the mother decided to abort because she didn't want the child to be bullied, humiliated and degraded by prejudiced little pack animals in the schoolyard... or subjected to a life of celery sticks and tofu to prevent becoming fat (although as stated before, medications which reduce weight are improving regularly), then there's an element of pre-emptive mercy there. As someone that was bullied extensively for my size, I can see the rationale.

Of course, if the mother is motivated by fear of what other parents will think of her because "fat kids reflect poorly on the mother," and she's scared that a fat kid will lessen her chance of becoming the President of the PTA, then yes, I would hold her in contempt.

I should clarify something... I talk about holding the "bad" potential mothers (NOT the ones from scenario 2 or 3) in contempt a lot, but I admit I find it difficult to pronounce their actions as evil since their actions are not rights violations, nor are they necessarily grounded in willful irrationality (i.e. evasion). I also find it hard to consider these "bad" potential mothers to be evil people. An entire person's character is clearly a hard thing to evaluate, especially where most people are not philosophers nor prone to lots of contemplation and reflection, and typically of mixed character anyway. Virtue ethics systems focus on cultivating virtues, their primary question isn't "what should I do?" but rather "what kind of person should I be?" (yes, the questions clearly impact on one another). So what I do is I look at the questions of "what kind of person would be the type to abort a fetus genetically predisposed to obesity out of a desire to keep up appearances and social-climb more effectively?" and "what kind of person would be the type to abort a male fetus out of hatred for men?"

Clearly, the kind of people that WOULD act on such a basis have obviously screwed up priorities and a whole raft of psychological flaws, that's for sure.

But yes, I don't think this question has an easy answer. We'd have to look at every individual situation in context. I certainly wouldn't hold that a sex-selective abortion pre-viability is necessarily an immoral act, though.

[Selene]

Andrew:

Excellent analysis. I am completely serious about this issue. My ex and I had to struggle with the situation, as she contracted malignant ovarian cancer in her twenty-third week of pregnancy, and, we were "told" to have an abortion.

The intellectual, psychological and emotional roller coaster that we experienced was exquisitely psychically painful and contextual. We had the "Greek choir" of advice from "professionals," friends and family. However, when all the psychic dust settled. it was primarily her decision because it was her life that was at risk in going forward with the birth.

As we advance technologically, we are approaching these contextual choices, and, as you clearly noted, the decision gamut is going to become more and more contextual.

Thanks for your solid approach to a difficult issue. You have a good mind.

Adam

[studiodekadent]

Andrew:

Excellent analysis.

Thank you.

I am completely serious about this issue. My ex and I had to struggle with the situation, as she contracted malignant ovarian cancer in her twenty-third week of pregnancy, and, we were "told" to have an abortion.

I'm sorry to hear about that experience. It must have been rough for both of you. I should add, legally I am also pro-choice when it is to save the life of the mother, although you are correct that new medical technologies will lessen the necessity of those abortions

That said, legally speaking we probably will have to issue some sort of "cut off time," since it would be hard to determine exact point of fetal viability... the nature of human growth and the unique nature of each pregnancy kind of clashes with the fact that laws have to be abstract and general (as Hayek pointed out). Personally, I think the first-two-trimesters limit is the best balance of both facts, but yes, that's a matter for politics rather than ethics.

Thanks for your solid approach to a difficult issue. You have a good mind.

Thank you.

[anthony]

Gender selection by abortion - and invasion of privacy by the State?

It all reeks from beginning to end. It is definitely irrational and immoral

for the woman to be motivated by the former, but how do you prove it?

Would doctors be pressured to inform on their patients?

As disgusting as the mother's value-system, is the government's interfering

and moralizing. I think she should have the right to do as she pleases,

immoral though it is.

[9thdoctor]

This is just the anti-abortion crowd trying to rile up the troops. Any wonder it’s during an election year? How is the state (or even the doctor) supposed to know a person’s motives? And even if they unambiguously state their motives, what’s to stop them from going to another doctor after being refused by the first?

[Selene]

This is just the anti-abortion crowd trying to rile up the troops. Any wonder it’s during an election year? How is the state (or even the doctor) supposed to know a person’s motives? And even if they unambiguously state their motives, what’s to stop them from going to another doctor after being refused by the first?

Dennis:

It is not whether the act can be accomplished that I am attempting to address, it is the ethical issue. Therefore, taking the politics out of the issue, how do you, personally, analyze the issue presented in the thread?

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Fat basher.

I have reported you to Governor Christie's office.

(Shame on you. Everyone knows it's a glandular malfunction.)

Gravitationally challenged.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

Therefore, taking the politics out of the issue, how do you, personally, analyze the issue presented in the thread?

I don’t have any particular insight into which motives for having an abortion are ethically valid or not. Obviously gender selection sounds like a frivolous motive in today’s cultural context. However, if it were artificial insemination, and the couple decides to only have the embryos from one gender implanted (at present I don’t believe the gender can be identified), would that be objectionable?

[Mikee]

Nobody's business. To even discuss it implies individual choice about personal matters is subject to collective will.

[Selene]

A team has been able to predict the whole genetic code of a foetus by taking a blood sample from a woman who was 18 weeks pregnant, and a swab of saliva from the father.

They believe that, in time, the test will become widely available, enabling doctors to screen unborn babies for some 3,500 genetic disorders.

At the moment the only genetic disorder routinely tested for on the NHS is Down’s syndrome.

This is a large-scale genetic defect caused by having an extra copy of a bundle of DNA, called a chromosome.

Other such faults are sometimes tested for, but usually only when there is a risk of inheriting them from a parent.

Related Articles

• 
  Babies' DNA profiled in the womb09 Dec 2010
  
• 
  Blood test for Down's syndrome30 Jun 2010
  
• 
  Babies with three parents possible19 Jan 2012
  
• 
  Autism screening 'may be possible'12 Jan 2009
  

By contrast, the scientists say their new test would identify far more conditions, caused by genetic errors.

However, they warned it raised “many ethical questions” because the results could be used as a basis for abortion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9315265/Babies-could-be-tested-for-3500-genetic-faults.html

[Theodore]

If scientists detect a gene with a proven connection to becoming a rap artist, I would consider that a valid justification for abortion.

I might even support a law making abortion mandatory in such cases.

Almost thou argument persuadest me to support abortion.

As I said in another post I am against abortion except in a very narrow case, and once the idiots legalize the artificial womb I will be against it completely. Having said that....

People we must be logically consistent. IF abortion is legal, if you support abortion, you cannot object to any reason a woman might choose to abort the child. If a woman chooses to abort because the child will have red hair, or blue eyes, or whatever reason YOU CANNOT OBJECT. It is logically unsupportable. "My body my choice" leaves no room for ambiguity.

I am only in favor of abortion in cases where the child will never be sentient, or in cases where the mothers life is truly in danger (allergic to pregnancy or ectopic pregnancy.) Because mommy wants to go to a rave next week is not a valid reason for terminating the life of another human. Just had a thought... If a woman has more than 2 abortions then the third time she has to get fixed. If the male supports the abortion he too has to get fixed.

[BaalChatzaf]

• Autism screening 'may be possible'12 Jan 2009
  

That could spell the end of Aspies. Goodbye to first rate physics and mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

• Autism screening 'may be possible'12 Jan 2009
  

That could spell the end of Aspies. Goodbye to first rate physics and mathematics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Beethoven would have been aborted. The list would be massive. Think "Its a Wonderful Life." How many lives have you touched?

[BaalChatzaf]

Beethoven would have been aborted. The list would be massive. Think "Its a Wonderful Life." How many lives have you touched?

Thousands, but not all for good.

Ba'al Chatzaf