Summary Of Abortion And Disability By Ruth Hubbard

In the essay “Abortion and Disability”, Ruth Hubbard takes on the ideals set forth in a modern day eugenic process. Eugenics is the study of improving a species by selectively breeding to make sure desirable traits are passed on to offspring; This also means that undesirable traits are taken out of the gene pool. Modern scientists are working on ways to offer testing on unborn fetuses to see if they will have any genetic deficiencies or disabilities. While this may sound like a good thing, some have taken offense to this. A minority of the people in the disabled population sees this as a crime against humanity as we are evaluating unborn children and deciding if their lives are worth living. Hubbard takes on these dilemmas and addresses both

the historical and modern challenges that we face today.
Hubbard first talks about the origins of eugenics and how it all came into the public spotlight.

Eugenic studies first began in the United States and Britain in the early 1900’s. It began as a way to try and improve society by removing the inept and insane from the gene pool. Laws were enacted in the United States from 1907-1931, which called for sterilization of those with a tremendously low IQ and those that were deemed mentally unstable. While the actions of the U.S. were immoral, eugenics took a turn for the worst in post WWI Germany. The term eugenics turned into racial hygiene, which became a festering point for racism and destructive social programs. Racial hygiene became most historically known in Germany, these events are often known as the Holocaust. The Holocaust is the well known German operation that set out to rid the world of Jews and the disabled. Starting in 1933 under the rule of Adolf Hitler, Germany enacted sterilization laws, and it would only get worse. Soon sterilization and euthanasia became common place in Germany, leading to the many death camps that were used during WWII. This is the first thing that people think about when they hear the word eugenics, and leaves them with an immovable position of contempt for the

subject.
Modern day eugenics is not a mass murder like that of the 1940’s, it is an operation to try and improve society.

In it’s current state, eugenics in today's society is more like a warning than the cleansings of history. With parental consent, prenatal testing is performed on fetuses and the analysis is given back to the parents. Things like genetic disorders and disabilities can be detected from these tests, and give the parents an idea of what their children's lives may be like. If a test comes back positive for a serious birth defect/disorder, then parents that may not be able to economically support the child and give it a good quality of life can abort and prevent suffering from all parties. The problem is that many disabled rights activists have taken offense to this, and are campaigning against it. Disabled rights activists have a problem with parents choosing which fetuses have a “right to live” based on their proposed disorder. However, if a parent simply cannot afford to take care of their child, abortion may be the only sensible option. While it may be immoral to choose who has the “right to live”, is it not immoral to bring a child into the world that you know you will not be able to care for and will likely suffer. Even if a parent has the economic means to care for a disabled child, it is mentally and physically taxing, and not all people can handle the stress of raising a special needs child. It takes a dedicated and compassionate person to do such a thing, and

a majority of the public could not handle the burden, economic, physical, or mental.
Hubbard also talks about her issues with the testing itself, and what she thinks she needs to be done before it becomes mainstream. Her main example pertains to those either diagnosed with Huntington’s disease or with a history of the ailment in the family. Huntington’s disease is an inherited disease that causes a progressive breakdown of the nerves in the brain, and often doesn’t appear until after the age of 40. Hubbard says the testing puts an undue burden on these people, as it almost forces themselves and all their relatives tested. She says if they don’t get tested, then they will be ridiculed for “sticking their heads in the sand”, but if they do get tested then they are forced to make a decision to abort or not. Testing is purely a benefit to this world, as it gives us knowledge we may not have otherwise found out. If a person tests positive for Huntington’s then they can prepare for it and not be blindsided by the crippling disease. It also allows for expecting parents to prepare for their child and educate them on their genetic bane. If a child is brought into this world and already knows of their unfortunate future, they can live a better life than those not predisposed to their condition. Aborting a child who has tested positive for Huntington’s is a little more controversial, as they will live a happy youth, unaffected by their ailment. It is ultimately the parents decision, and those that believe their child will not live a fruitful life are fully justified in their choice. While this testing could lead to a some undeserving abortions, it will bring about and happier and more prepared generation of people with Huntington’s.
Every day we meet new struggles to try and use technology to help better our lives, without crossing a moral line and reverting back into history. Through history we have seen that genetic testing and sterilization have led to irreversible consequences, and that it can get out of hand fairly quickly. A woman has a right to her own body and abortion is a morally sound action, but the technology that is being introduced could potentially change a woman’s decision. Scientists and doctors should be held accountable for the people’s lives they are changing, as we are at a moment in time where technology and morals are clashing heads, leading to widespread social controversy.