Guest opinion: Abortion of children with Down syndrome hints at eugenics

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.


  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    Feb. 12, 2019 1:50 a.m.

    ‘Hints’

    That’s putting it mildly

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Feb. 9, 2019 6:23 a.m.

    RedShirt,

    The LDS Church does not establish laws governing abortion, nor do they have authority to do so. The Church also has no official doctrine regarding when life begins.

    What is your point?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:21 a.m.

    To "I M LDS 2" and what about the life of the unborn? According to the LDS church, there are few allowable instances for abortion. Down Syndrome is not one of them. Outside of the situations where the LDS church has said abortion is ok, when is a woman forced to become pregnant? If she made her choice to risk pregnancy, why should a child also have to be sacrificed because she made a bad choice? Tell us, what other time to we kill an innocent person because somebody else made a bad choice?

    To "Thomas Jefferson" ok, tell us, what has the government done right? Is it any of the programs that are now broke or costing us more money than they should? Is the the government agencies that have ultimate power over your life?

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Feb. 7, 2019 10:19 a.m.

    The ethical issues raised by our capacity to intervene in the reproductive cycle and manipulate biology at the gene level deserve better than the dog whistle rhetoric this op-ed utilizes. IMO, strong arguments always rely on substance. Implied ad hominem suggests a dearth of it.

    I think we should absolutely discuss the implications of our capacity to, in essence, eliminate many birth abnormalities. Some questions I can think of to be considered:

    Is the fact that we are capable of loving/valuing these children sufficient justification to compel parents to take these pregnancies to term against their will?

    Does the fact that genetic and chromosomal abnormalities are naturally occurring mean we can compel everyone to accept whatever they get, or should this decision remain subject to each person's belief system?

    Does allowing for choice really mean we don't value life or does it mean that we respect first the known life existing in front of us and then, a close second, the potential life it can create?

    If we can compel a female to sustain the life of another that can't do this on its own, can we also compel this of males? E.g., can we compel criminals to give blood?

  • Thomas Jefferson Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 9:48 a.m.

    the sutherland institute sure doesnt think the government can do anything right...except tell women why or why not they should be forced to carry a fetus to term.

  • The Dark Knight Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 7, 2019 6:13 a.m.

    All of the Sutherland Institute's convictions about value and sanctity in life seem to conveniently go away as soon as the subject turns to helping provide care for poor people who have already been born. I cannot take them seriously on moral stands.

  • batfink Australia, 00
    Feb. 6, 2019 11:05 p.m.

    Hmm, I'm a Latter Day Saint and whilst I too believe that abortion of fetuses with Down's is wrong, I'm a little bit stumped by the push to lengthen the lives of those with Downs via science.

    If God made them so they'd depart early, why prolong their lives?

    Why is it alright for a prophet say 'My wife has died and I'm old so I'll let diabetes take me, starting with my toes' which is nature doing its thing, but, we're not allowed to let nature do its thing when it comes to people with Downs syndrome ?

    Seems like a double standard to me.

    Hmm, I see this as *God designed the lives of Down's syndrome sufferers to be shortened so that the parents with a Down's child wouldn't stress about nobody to look after the Downs child when the elderly parents depart this earth*.
    I remember back in the mid 1990's that Downs sufferers only lived to around mid 30's but now well, who looks after long-living adults requiring 24/7 care?

    I'll follow the church's council and I'm no nazi btw- a friend recently praised someone for "saving" a wild owl after a car accident. The owl now has one wing and one eye and cannot perform any task it was programed to do naturally... is it 'saved' or imprisoned?

  • NevPro Syracuse, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 10:48 p.m.

    Unconditional piece of legislation that goes completely against Women's Rights. My health, medical records, and choices are none of your business. Women ......that decide to have an abortion do not owe even their Doctor an explanation as to why.

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 6:56 p.m.

    The mother should be able to choose. It is her pregnancy, her health, her life. If you don't believe in it, don't do it. But don't force others to live by your beliefs.

    Parents make "life or death" decisions for their children all the time. You tread on dangerous ground when you start depriving parents of their rights, especially when it comes to prenatal decisions.

  • Whazzzzzzzupppp Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 6, 2019 4:17 p.m.

    Interesting timing on this article.

    Did anyone else consider Microsoft's Xbox Superbowl ad (happy disabled kids playing computer games) to be an anti-abortion piece? That was the first thing I thought of as I was watching it. Great message.

  • dulce et decorum est , 00
    Feb. 6, 2019 4:04 p.m.

    This was a good article. The statistics about 67 to 85% of unborn babies diagnosed with down syndrome being aborted in the United States, and practically all in Iceland, provide important context for discussions about abortion, as does the other material provided in the article about value of the fife of someone with down syndrome