I think that you meant to include the word "only" between "not" and "false" in your last paragraph.

Question: if a test could be developed to identify a gene that caused liberalism, would conservatives suddenly become pro-choice?

Just a thought.

Nah. Accessing the morality gene would be deemed a choice, and children born with such tendencies would be shipped off to reform camps, where they would be taught to suppress their deviant urges.

There is no such thing as too many "Princess Bride" quotes.

Anybody want a peanut?

It's worth looking back at what eugenics actually was before throwing the term around willy-nilly.

The fact that once upon a time eugenics mostly involved the immoral practice of forced sterilization hardly means it's inaccurate to use it to describe the immoral practice of killing fetuses with insufficiently perfect health. Times change. I read somewhere that about 95% of American fetuses with Down's syndrome are aborted. If that's not eugenics I don't know what is. Pro-abortion rights liberals ought to have the courage of their convictions and embrace the positive effects that flow from the wide availability in the U.S. of applied eugenics. Fewer people with Down's syndrome certainly saves a lot of families from a lot of pain and anguish. It also saves on economic resources.

This is actually a very complitcated issue for pro-choice politics as it relates to disability rights advocacy. Some excellent work has been done by pro-choice women of color who are also disbility rights activists. For a great piece that reconciles all these issues, see here:
http://www.protectchoice.org/article.php?id=140

Nice post. As expected, Gerson sees this issue from the perspective that abortion is per se evil. For him, this is just a special case, but one in which a poorly constructed arugment can potentially persuade.

As you point out, if you look at the eugenic side of things you get a wholly different picture. Eugenics has as its goal "improvement" of the gene pool, whereas aborting a fetus with severe anomalies changes the gene pool little if at all. Once can argue that most people with trisomy 21 don't have "severe" anomalies, of course.

That gets to the central sleight of hand in Gerson's argument -- linking this type of abortion to the way in which we treat the disabled, thereby incriminating both. He argues that the fewer disabled there are, the less acceptable disability becomes. The solution to that, though, is to increase efforts to integrate those with disability into society, including support for their education, employment, and independent living.

Eugenics:

the science of improving a human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

Your criticism is unfounded.

Question: if a test could be developed to identify a gene that caused liberalism, would conservatives suddenly become pro-choice?

Liberals are already doing their best to reduce their demographic in the future via 'choice'.

"The victims weren't the prospective children of the sterilized."

What children? Are you saying the unconceived, unborn fetuses are children? Will they let you write for TAPPED with such an unenlightened perspective?

No, Jasper, eugenics is the removal of "undesirables" from the breeding population. Down syndrome individuals are almost invariably sterile thus aren't part of the breeding pool to begin with.

You could argue that aborting a pregnancy because the fetus has trisomy 21 is immoral but that doesn't mean it's eugenics.

Gerson's assertion that fetuses have civil rights is flatly retarded, but that issue is only tangentially related the specious invocation of eugenics.

Down syndrome individuals are almost invariably sterile thus aren't part of the breeding pool to begin with.

Minor correction: Men with Down syndrome are almost invariably sterile. Women with Down syndrome have significantly lower fertility, but are not generally sterile.

As usual, right-wingers like Michael Gerson write from the perspective of their own unique position of wealth and privilege. Sure, it's awfully noble (for someone with money and time to spare) to consider raising a child who is challenged in one way or another and may need care for the rest of his/her life.
But most people of meager or even modest means would probably consider that a financial burden that would push them beyond the breaking point.
These and other opinions held by the holier-than-thou wingers tell you a whole lot about how much they yearn for a world where everyone is just like them. It is implicit in practically every vocal position they take.

"Gerson's assertion that fetuses have civil rights is flatly retarded"

Laws that treat the murder of a pregnant woman as a double murder arguably affirm fetal rights in a statutory manner.

The only treaty that specifically grants rights to fetuses is the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969, signed by 24 Latin American countries, which states that human beings have rights beginning at the moment of conception.

"In a 1981 case, Jefferson v. Griffin Spalding County Hospital Authority, 247 Ga. 86, 274 S.E.2d 457, the Georgia Supreme Court held that an expectant mother in her last weeks of pregnancy did not have the right to refuse surgery or other medical treatment if the life of the unborn child was at stake."

Appears the only thing retarded Eric is your education and knowledge of the law

Mass abortion in the US since the 1970s has quite likely had a major eugenic (adjectival form) effect on our society--by reducing crime rates significantly and bringing other major benefits given that the terminated fetuses would have had a higher than normal incidence of criminal and other antisocial behavior (illicit drug use, child abuse, spouse/partner abuse, welfare dependency, community organizing).

Although it is hardly PC to acknowledge this, legalized abortion probably has had and continues to have major eugenic effects. That is the most important reason why it will never be outlawed in the US.

Thank you, Supremes and feminists, for giving us a better society.

You sure told me, nate; "the law" [i]can't[/i] be flatly retarded! Tell me what you think of [i]Dred Scott[/i]?

I don't deny that anti-choicers have been pounding for legal recognition of fetal rights as a backdoor for overturning [i]Roe[/i] but that is a radical premise almost entirely unsupported by case law, in the US or elsewhere. The assertion that Blastocyst-Americans have rights is simply ridiculous on its face.

chromosomal discrimination

Perhaps if there were a test to test for homosexuality it would be different.....in what way?

The Gersons and Palins and Schlaflys of the world get to legitimately hold only one of the following positions:

1) Abortion of a child you cannot properly care for is immoral.

2) The state should not support the proper care of disabled children through public health care, substantial increases in special education funding, and subsidies to assist parents.

To hold both these positions is immoral and cruel to the nth degree, yet they somehow do it with impunity.

No, Jasper, eugenics is the removal of "undesirables" from the breeding population.

Eric: An aborted fetus will never breed. That's about as effective a means of "removal of 'undesirables' from the breeding population" as I can imagine (at least it is when you're up to 90% as the U.S. is). And as a fellow commenter pointed out, your assertion that individuals with Down's cannot reproduce is incorrect.

Are you saying the unconceived, unborn fetuses are children?

Wait, you're arguing that fetuses that don't even exist should have rights? You've gone beyond arguing that fertilized eggs have rights and into arguing that eggs that might, maybe, someday be fertilized have more rights than fully-grown women?

Wow, you people are sick.

Years ago my father ran a sheltered workshop for retarded children. Of course, the retarded children were anything but children physiologically. Some were profoundly retarded, but many were not, especially the Downs children. They dated, attended dances, tried to have sex when left unattended.

My father was conflicted about the situation. Society frowned on their coupling for lots of reasons, but the primary reason cited was possibility of children being conceived. My father really thought that a number of his charges would have been happiest if allowed to live in a relationship, even if sterilization were part of the deal. But of course these people were not allowed to have adult relationships under any circumstances.

Sorry, eugenics happens when any individual is prevented from reproducing and sometimes our society generally agrees that is a good thing. And sometimes this even extends to preventing individuals from having relationships that society is too prudish to allow.

Actually, eugenics in other places, such as Germany, did mean the killing of undesirables -- not just the denial of "choice." Now someone scream "citation please."

Mr./Mrs./Miss Anonymous, you need not take seriously the cries for citations from leftist apologists for eugenics. The murder ("euthanasia") of physically and mentally handicapped Germans by the National Socialists and the many hundreds of physicians who collaborated with them should be well known. The victim list amounts to well over 100,000, killed by various means including starvation, lethal injection, and asphyxiation (in gas vans and gas chambers at hospitals).

How many American doctors are waiting to get rid of unwanted people? Unwanted people like my mentally challenged cousin Jackie whose heroic struggles are still more proof that he should live. Well, mad doctors, you can't have Jackie or any other innocent person to snuff out.

We've had eugenics laws for ages. Eugenics is the rationale behind outlawing incest. Somehow, we've larned how to live with laws against incest, but the problem with these things is that it can be a slippery slope.

I'll stick with the rights of full grown, ready to reproduce women. Eugenics laws denying them the right to give birth are outrageous, even if the Supreme Court upheld them in the infamous "three generations of imbeciles are enough case". Steven J. Gould actually got the third generation imbecile in questions report card. She was a B student.

I also think laws requiring them to reproduce are just as outrageous.

As for unconceived babies, I'm male, my immune system kills millions of unconceived babies every day. I've learned to live with it.