Talk:Genetics and abortion

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 22 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Georgiapayne7, Rachelbiggio, Lexidelgizzo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Article move
Copied from Talk:Sex-selective abortion and infanticide.

I have moved Selective abortion back to Sex-selective abortion and infanticide. "Selective abortion" is far too ambiguous, as there is also selective reduction, which is when the number of fetuses in a multiple pregnancy is deliberately reduced by abortion. The title of this article should give some indication of what is being selected. Also, there is no logical basis for lumping together Sex-selective abortion and Genetic-selective abortion into one article, as the term "prenatal discrimination" is neologistic and POV. I will thus be splitting off content related to genetic-selective abortion into Genetics and abortion in order to preserve thematic integrity. -Severa (!!!) 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

potential future topic
I've always wondered... Of the women who have an amnio or other procedure, some of them are told "your baby seems to have (some condition)". Each woman (hopefully with her partner) makes a decision, to have an abortion / termination or not. Some of the ones who have an abortion / termination - are wrong to do so because the test was a false positive. My question is - Has any study been done on the number of abortions / terminations resulting from false positives?

(long winded but didn't know how else to get there) Garrie 02:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Expert needed
Because this extends into both bioethics and biology, there should be more cross-references and detail. This can be best accomplished under the direction of an expert on the subject area.--Cutesmartguy 05:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Also congenital conditions does not = genetic. An expert on the whole issue is needed, and sources.Yobmod (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?
There has been a tag on the article since 2008, saying "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page." Where is this discussion? I see no debate here and don't see any obvious indications of neutrality disputes in the article. I will remove the tag but if some other editor feels it is warranted please restore after outlining the cause of the controversy that other editors asked to consider. Fireflo (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge this article into abortion debate
This article could fit in a heading or subheading in abortion debate. Merging the page could increase activity on the topic. See Merging. Waters.Justin (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Georgetown University Group Project
We are in a class at Georgetown University and participating in a project to add and enhance a Wikipedia article based on our project topic. We have included more research and content to this existing article.

Some reproductive rights activists oppose selective abortion bans. When describing their oppositions, these activists usually do not say they favor selective abortions in and of themselves, but oppose selective-abortion bans because these laws conflict with reproductive rights.

These activists say that selective-abortion bans do not serve to save people with disabilities but instead, seek to incrementally restrict abortion. Incremental restrictions on abortion take the form of legislation that codify specific rules limiting access to abortion without outright violating the Supreme Court ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In that case, the courts ruled that states cannot place an "undue burden" on the right to abortion before fetal viability. Accordingly, anti-abortion groups advocate for laws like perinatal hospice laws, which mandate the provision of fetal life-sustaining resources for people with fatal pregnancies. Measures like perinatal hospital laws materially impact the accessibility of abortion without outright banning the procedure and thus often avoid being classified as "undue burdens" on abortion before viability. Groups like Americans United for Life have been very successful in making abortion more difficult to access through the incremental approach. Therefore, reproductive rights activists are wary of incremental abortion bans and see selective abortion bans as such.

The argument that selective abortion bans are more geared toward limiting access to abortion that helping disabled people is bolstered by the fact that disability does not appear to be a driving factor for abortion in the United States. The majority of respondents in a survey said that they sought an abortion either because they could not afford a baby, were not in a relationship with someone with whom they felt comfortable co-parenting, or because they were done having children. The financial motivations of abortion are also demonstrated in the fact that 75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor (having an income below the federal poverty level of $15,730 for a family of two in 2014) or low-income (having an income of 100–199% of the federal poverty level). Also, the majority of genetic testing cannot be done before twelve or fifteen weeks of gestation, meaning that abortions in response to disability would primarily occur well into the second trimester of pregnancy. In 2016, over 65% of American abortions occurred before eight weeks gestation, 80% occurred before ten weeks, and nearly 90% occurred before twelve weeks. In contrast, a little more than 5% occurred after sixteen weeks. This evidence suggests that the vast majority of abortions in the United States occur before someone could know whether the fetus they carry has a genetic condition. Given this evidence, reproductive rights advocates assert that selective abortion bans seek to attack the act of abortion, rather than the act of ending a disabled life.

Regardless, there does exist an unfortunate history of eugenic sentiments within the reproductive rights movement. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, long vocalized her belief that contraception and abortion could be used to "exterminate" African-Americans and disabled people. The emerging bioethical issue of "designer babies," people whose traits have been selected by their parents, may also force reproductive rights activists to balance their commitment to choice with the legacy of eugenics. The idea of a designer baby draws criticism because parents often select for traits such as intelligence, athleticism, and attractiveness, all categories that may appear objective but often reify ablest and racist logics. Accordingly, reproductive rights groups must increasingly balance their advocacy for individual choice in reproduction with the ways individual choices reflect potential societal wrongs. In response to both this history and potential future, many reproductive justice groups -- such as Reproaction and Women Enabled International -- are increasingly focusing on merging disability justice frameworks with reproductive justice action.