Stopping the practice of aborting babies with disabilities is not just a ‘Christian’ concern. There are those who distance themselves from ‘the anti-choice movement,’ yet have their own arguments against the selective destruction of babies with disabilities.
Marsha Saxton, Ph.D., in Disabled Women’s View of Selective Abortion: An Issue for All Women:
Selective abortion is not just about the rights or considerations of disabled people; the rights of women and of all human beings are implicated here. . .
If a condition (like Down’s Syndrome) is unacceptable, how long will it be before experts use selective abortion to manipulate other (presumed genetic) socially charged characteristics: sexual orientation, race, attractiveness, height, intelligence? Pre-implantation diagnosis, now used with in vitro fertilization, offers the prospect of “admission standards” for all fetuses.
Some of the pro-screening arguments masquerade today as “feminist” when they are not. Selective abortion is promoted in many doctor’s offices as a “reproductive option” and “personal choice.” But as anthropologist Rayna Rapp noted, “private choices always have public consequences.” When a woman’s individual decision is the result of social pressure, it can have repercussions for all others in the society.