“Stop Eugenics!” = Anti-abortion?

Over and over do I see in DeafRead the blog “Stop Eugenics!” so many times, even as much as 6 times in a single day on the main page of DeafRead. I’ve already read a bit about the Clause 14 (4) (9) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill and the slippery-slope it may entail for us humanity in the future. But this bill is essentially an abortion requirement bill because it does involve in the decision to remove an embryo, which has all the genetic information as a born baby, based on known genetic defects. If an embryo contains these genetic information that are essentially “defects” they are, of course, aborted or rejected on that basis. Mishka Zena covered it quite well addressing this slippery slope problem.

Let’s suppose a Deaf couple wanted to ensure on having a deaf baby via IVF should taxpayers foot the bill for their decision to have a deaf child’s expensive education (e.g. school for the deaf) and interpreters? Should the financial responsibility be 100% upon Deaf parents versus over those who, by chance and not by IVF, give birth to a deaf child? Let’s try this from a different viewpoint. Suppose a mildly retarded married couple (fully independent) wanted to increase the potential on conceiving a baby who would also be born mildly retarded. Would this be acceptable? The same for dwarfism and so on.

Indeed a heavy question. If a couple purposely set out via IVF to have a baby with a certain desirable but shortcoming traits should they ought to pay for all expenses related to education, special needs and medical attention for that child should the state and insurance ought to pay for a planned and desired “disability” knowing the inherent cost is likely to be much, much higher? Who is ultimately responsible for future costs for these “specially designed” children? Whose financial responsibility would this belong to? The parents or government?

Now, let’s turn this around. Suppose a Deaf couple use IVF to screen out any genetic deafness and instead look for an embryo that doesn’t have genetic deafness in order to have a hearing baby? How would that be wrong? If Deaf parents already decided to have their Deaf child implanted with a cochlear implant like in Sound and Fury then there is no reason to think that Deaf parents will not want to ensure on having a hearing baby via IVF. Dr. Jamie Grifo thinks so,

One of the nation's leading experts in reproductive medicine, Dr. Jamie Grifo of New York University, believes parents should be able to decide whether or not to have the procedure.

"Parents should certainly have a say in how they should be able to make decisions about how to conduct their reproductive lives, rather than leaving it up to some regulator or legislator," he said.

Certainly, in theory, parents ought to conduct their own reproductive decisions and not that of the government or regulator. But I guess the core question comes down to would be whether parents who plan on having a “disabled” child via IVF ought to bear all future expenses related to the child’s disability. It's a choice between reproductive rights versus financial support.

So, the "Stop Eugenics!" is asking the government of UK to stop this Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill because they (i.e. "Stop Eugenics!") believe also in the concept of pro-life as a whole? I'm curious if that's the case.

But let's suppose instead the UK parliamentary comes up with a bill outlining that anyone who uses IVF procedures to purposely plan and deliberately conceive a baby with a disability much like the parents' will not receive any financial support for medical, education and other services (e.g. BSL interpreting), over those who child born by chance to have a disability? What then?

Slippery slope indeed.