> That's harm reduction.

More technically, that's eugenics.

After having flirted with that practice in the last century, I thought we'd decided that it was a bad idea. But I guess ideas are hard to kill.

> More technically, that's eugenics.

No it's called 'choice'. Women pregnant with babies potentially affected by that malformation are not forced by doctors or the government to abort. Big difference.

Eugenics has always been a 'choice'. The only difference is who is making the choice. As long as it's not the choice of the individual being euthanized; it's still a rebranded form of eugenics.

>choice of the individual

during the first trimester there is no individual - the fetus brain isn't even at the fish level. There is no electrical activity in the fetus brain at all until the week 6.

In response to the comment below - genetically an egg and sperm combined in the lab is different from either donor, yet it doesn't make it into individual. Or if you just take 2 (or 3, ...) DNA and recombine on computer, and actually synthesize that DNA - genetically distinct, yet definitely not an individual.

Genetically there is. There is something that is genetically human, and is a different individual from either parent.

This is not incorrect, but if countries had proper safety nets for parents with disabled children, maybe they wouldn't be aborted that often.

More technically, that's euthanasia and it's optional, not government mandated, and no one is sterilized after. Eugenics would be sterilizing any parents that have any possibility of producing unhealthy babies.

Abortion is not optional to the baby.

I was a late-life child. High risk for Down's. My mother didn't get the test, which could've introduced more problems. She believed I was already alive, because I was, and I was therefore sacred to her, and the outcome of the test would be irrelevant to her choice. Notice in all of this, I didn't have a choice.

I'm glad she didn't abort me. If I don't want to be alive now, now it's my decision.

I guess you can keep arguing that killing unborn children diagnosed with Down's isn't eugenics but my perspective is pretty heavily informed by the fact that I'm alive thanks to my mother being bothered by the idea that she might kill me in utero if I had a developmental disorder.

I'd like to see you explain the position that a baby diagnosed with Down's should be aborted to someone with Down's, frankly.

I'm not sure anyone here is saying that anyone should be aborted, but rather that people should have the choice to abort if that's what they decide.

After having two kids and watching those ultrasounds, I’m a lot less sure of this than I was when I was 18.

Abortion is a horrible thing I wish didn’t exist. Given that it does exist, it’s a horrible choice I wish upon no one. Given that choice is ever made, it’s a horrible thought to consider punishing a woman for making it.

All of that said, as a society we have a responsibility to do better than almost a million abortions a year (~20% of all pregnancies) in the US.

I think a better male contraceptive choice would go a long way to reducing that number. As usual, I believe in a technological solution to societal ills.

We know how to drastically reduce abortions. Provide free long term contraceptives to women. We've seen it work in places like Denver who cut their teen pregnancy and abortion rates in half while saving $6 in medical bills for every $1 spent on IUDs. We cannot get programs like this more broadly because half our country thinks outlawing abortion and teaching "personal responsibility" is the solution despite evidence that neither actually work.

I think roughly half the country believes that abortion should be illegal not on policy grounds but on ethical grounds.

I do think contraception is obviously a powerful tool to reducing elective abortion, as a matter of policy.