Reporter's Notebook

When Does Abortion Become Eugenics?
Show Description +

Readers discuss the ethics of choosing to abort a fetus based on sex, race, disability, and, perhaps in the future, sexual orientation. To join the debate or share your own experience, email (For a broader series of reader stories on abortion, go here.)

Show 3 Newer Notes

Abortions Based on Down Syndrome

Greg is aligned with this reader’s point that laws against sex-selective abortion are “pretty much unenforceable”:

I agree that the natural response to making these abortions illegal is for parents to lie (and I seriously doubt that it’s predominantly women making these decisions; male coercion is seriously underappreciated). If you are determined to abort your child, the truth is no obstacle.

The larger point is to stigmatize this decision legally in the hope of shaping culture in a more positive direction for valuing human life regardless of how it looks. Same as incremental restrictions on smoking, soda consumption, opioid use, etc.

Another reader, William, shifts the discussion to disability:

Sex-selective abortion may not be common in the United States, but disability-selective abortion, which is also mentioned in Emma's article, sure is.  

Emma just posted a piece on the provocative issue of sex-selective abortion, pegged to a recently passed law in Indiana banning the killing of a fetus based on its “race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.” Such abortions raise a lot of ethical quandaries among pro-choice progressives, especially advocates for the disabled. As Emma puts it:

Should couples be able to abort their female fetuses—and it’s almost always female fetuses—in the hopes of having the boy they really wanted? Should a mom, ashamed at having a mixed-race baby, be able to abort because of race?

… or because of sexual orientation, if a “gay gene” is ever discovered? Terri, a member of the Atlantic reader group TAD, doesn’t see any quandaries here:

Advocates of the Indiana law want to get into the weeds to make people uncomfortable in their defenses of specific circumstances in order to piecemeal restrict abortion and thus set precedent for even further restriction. It isn’t an argument worth having. The answer is simple: Abortion is no one’s business but the woman and her doctor.

Responding to Terri, another reader worries that sex-selective abortion could be a slippery slope to eugenics, aided by the increased use of genetic engineering technology (such as CRISPR, previously covered in Notes):

It’s not the weeds. Technology has enabled people to choose to abort because of sex, disability, selective reduction (not wanting the hassle/expense of twins—“eenie meenie, miny ... go ahead and kill THAT one). Soon we will add more knowable features. Children are rapidly becoming more like a customizable product. If the DNA isn’t for a strapping, blonde, healthy son just abort and try again. It’s not coincidence that [early 20th century birth-control activist] Margaret Sanger was a racist eugenicist.

This reader makes a key distinction:

I don’t see the problem with people selectively choosing which genes they want to pass on (or introduce, for that matter)—as long as it’s their choice. The problem comes in when people are coerced into it.

What do you think about this controversial issue? Drop us an email to sound off. Another reader thinks this is all a theoretical debate: