Is abortion law a pre-cursor to a freakish orwellian genetically engineered society?

Question

Under Roe and Casey, abortion is legal, that is, its legal to terminate a homo-sapien organism with a lesser celluar mass.

Established law has "precedantial" value. In other words, wise legal minds need to consider what type of "Genies" this bottle may release in the future.

Consider that mind-spinning movement of genetics. We already have the ability to analyze DNA and predict certain traits or outcomes.

Now imagine a future, where un-protected humans (embryos) can be analyzed genetically. Remember, these organisms have almost no rights, with the exception that a stranger cant kill the fetuses, that against the law (the mother can). So because the under-developed human has no rights, the argument can be made that the non-human human can be genetically engineered by the mother. After all, she can terminate the non-human human right?

Genetic engineering itself is a controversial issue in the legal community, so we are not there yet, but the point is, there is no barrier with respect to the rights of the non-human human cause it has no rights.

You cant genetically engineer me, without my consent, because I have rights.

What if Roe is never defeated. Wouldnt a PRO-GENETIC ENGINEERING ATTORNEY FIRST USE THE ROE CASE TO SUPPORT HIS CAUSE?

Answer 1

You're exactly right. This is inevitably what abortion will lead to.

Just imagine a time when, not only the mother has the right to kill her unborn baby for being genetically inferior (gene for depression, maybe, or even gene for homosexuality?...interesting conflict there.) BUT, once democrats force us into nationalized healthcare and the government holds the purse strings for our medical care, what is the next logical step? I'll tell you what it is...it will be the government FORCING expectant mothers to submit to genetic testing for any and every little medical imperfection, then forcing her to kill her baby or face the withdrawal of her medical benefits for her baby's subsequent care. This could happen for depression, homicidal tendencies, or even diabetes or nearsightedness. Imagine, having to pay for glasses for a nearsighted baby? Better to just kill it than have it endure being called "four-eyes" on the playground, right? That just wouldn't be fair, would it? Or allowing a baby with a violence gene to be born? Better to kill it now for any crimes that it "might" commit in the future...you know, for the good of mankind and all.

Answer 2

Orwell didn't deal with genetically engineered societies, you're confusing him with Aldous Huxley...

And obviously you didn't read the Supreme Court opinion statement or know that much about Roe v. Wade... Abortion is legal with very specific restrictions, and the case itself deals with privacy and a woman's right to choose. It does not include, nor can it possibly extrapolate to include, genetic engineering. Roe does not make any claims one way or the other as to a woman's right to genetically modify the young, nor does it compromise the future rights of those children the woman decides to keep.

There is nothing in the case to establish the legal precedent you mistakenly assume may be set. Nor can such a precedent be formed based on this case, it would take another supreme court case. Beyond that your argument is a fallacy of the slippery slope and invalid.

So you may not like the abortion laws, but don't make up conspiracies that it will bring about some kind of ruin to civilization.

Answer 3

No. This is not the same thing.

The law already allows a woman to knowingly marry a man carrying a negative genetic trait that has been identified because of his family history. She may also legally have children with him. As an example, Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy can be passed from the father to either a son or daughter with a 50% chance of transmission occuring. Her ability to choose to have a child that might only live to be 25 is currently protected by law. What would be more "freakishly Orwellian", laws preventing parents from putting a future child in that much danger, or laws that would allow for a woman to choose to have a healthy child.

If anything, abortion law would help promote a mother continuing to have control over the potential future of her child.

Besides, a freakish Orwellian society would have the government genetically altering the child and telling the mother what to do with her body. Hmmmm...sounds like the world you want. FREAK!!

Answer 4

A pro-genetic engineering attorney might TRY to use this case to support his cause, but it won't hold much weight in a court brief. It's outside the scope of the issue of debate. Allowing for abortion is a far cry from genetic engineering. Although I would agree that pro-choice is closer to allowance than pro-life law, I wouldn't say one pre-supposes the other.

The issue of abortion is still way to controversial in this country to think that it will go further (at least for the time being). I don't believe the precedential value of the Roe v. Wade decision will be alleviate at anytime. I don't think that you could find 5 Supreme Court justices willing to overturn such a monumental decision. However, I think the repurcusions of Roe v. Wade's aftermath will prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from making any such decisions (i.e. genetic engineering) anytime in the near future.

Answer 5

MOST chimps don't have free will. BUT those who know ASL do. Free will is an artifact of language. Any animal that can think in words has free will, including dolphins. They can communicate the difference between a recreational boat and a harpoon boat. Sounds like language to ME!

Answer 6

Abortion is a freedom of choice. If you object to it, then you don't have to have an abortion, do you, but it is available for the poor fools who follow a religious rule that forbids them to use contraception...

I do not personally agree with abortion, but I agree to provide that for those who feel that they need such a service, it is better than back street clinics which will risk life and limb. Those who use the service must face that decision for the rest of their lives, but that is what freedom is all about - free to make mistakes - to choose - its what Christianity purports to offer, but seldom delivers.

Answer 7

All I know is look at Star Trek. Khan was the basis of genetic engineering and look at the mess he made of everything. Like it or not, diversity is the name of the game.

Answer 8

a person explained it this way recently:

Orwell and other dire writers of bygone ages wrote horrific stories that were so "out there" that we would begin to see it happening and avert our behaviors

sadly we are not heeding the sarcasms of Orwell and our once "Sci-Fi" is now reality in many cases, and we are paying the price, all for profit as we lose our souls and identity, or love for each other for quick gratification and control of others

Answer 9

First off I don't think you have any idea what your talking about.
Secondly Almost everything that you eat including animals are "Genetically Engineered". why focus on just humans and not everything your so called god created.

Answer 10

Embryos are just clumps of cells. Nice slippery slope argument, too bad it's total bullshit. You know what's freakishly Orwellian? Religion. Talk about "Big Brother is Watching"

Non-Believers
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Non-Believers/