Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Genealogy of Eugenic Thought
- Abortion Legislation and Eugenic Rationality
- Technologies of Selection
- Social Stratification and Reproductive Governance
- Case Studies of Coercive and Voluntary Eugenics
- Theoretical Perspectives
- Critiques and Counter‑Movements
- Ethical and Policy Futures
- Conclusion
Introduction
Abortion operates at the interstices of intimate biography, collective morality, scientific authority, and state power. Eugenics—coined by Francis Galton in 1883 to describe selective breeding for perceived human improvement—likewise inhabits a contested terrain where biology merges with ideology. When these two practices intersect, they generate fundamental sociological questions: Who is deemed fit to reproduce? Which pregnancies are encouraged, discouraged, or terminated? How do medical technologies, market forces, and governance regimes co‑construct hierarchies of life? This essay offers an extended exploration of the abortion–eugenics nexus, tracing its genealogies, unpacking its theoretical logics, and analysing its diverse global manifestations. Written for undergraduate sociologists, it aims to foster critical literacy in bio‑politics while supplying an empirically grounded roadmap for further inquiry.
Genealogy of Eugenic Thought
From Classical to Neo‑Eugenics
Classical eugenics emerged during the late‑Victorian period amid anxieties about urbanisation, immigration, and the supposed decline of the white middle classes. Its intellectual scaffolding combined Darwinian evolution, Mendelian genetics, and social Darwinism into a project of population optimisation. Early proponents such as Karl Pearson advocated “positive eugenics” (incentivising reproduction among the “fit”) and “negative eugenics” (discouraging or preventing reproduction among the “unfit”). Abortion was only one among several recommended techniques—others included forced sterilisation, marriage prohibition, and institutional segregation.
Following the atrocities of Nazi Germany, the term eugenics became discredited, yet the underlying impulse toward genetic “improvement” re‑emerged in post‑war family‑planning campaigns, prenatal diagnostics, and, more recently, gene‑editing technologies. Critical sociologists refer to this continuity as neo‑eugenics: a decentralised, market‑mediated, and ostensibly voluntary system of reproductive filtering grounded in consumer choice rather than state coercion.
Abortion in Early 20th‑Century Eugenics
During the Progressive Era, numerous U.S. states enacted laws that, while criminalising most abortions, carved out exceptions for foetal anomaly and the mother’s mental deficiency—both defined through eugenic taxonomies. Medical tribunals debated whether terminating foetuses with congenital “defects” served the public interest. In Britain, the 1938 Bourne case established a precedent for therapeutic abortion when continuation of pregnancy would make a woman a “mental wreck,” implicitly linking mental distress to the birth of a disabled child. These early case studies reveal how eugenic logics were embedded in claims of medical necessity long before liberal reforms of the 1960s and 1970s.
Abortion Legislation and Eugenic Rationality
Comparative Legal Landscapes
Legal frameworks governing abortion vary dramatically:
- Permissive regimes (e.g., Canada, most of Western Europe) allow termination upon request within gestational limits, yet often include special provisions for severe foetal impairment, implicitly ranking life quality.
- Conditional regimes (e.g., India, South Africa) permit abortion for socioeconomic hardship or risk to the woman’s “physical or mental health,” creating discretionary space where eugenic rationales may operate.
- Highly restrictive regimes (e.g., El Salvador, Poland post‑2020) ban abortion except to save the woman’s life, yet some still allow terminations for anencephaly, reinforcing the notion that certain impairments justify exception.
A sociological reading of legislation shows that even liberal statutes articulate normative judgments about which lives deserve state protection.
Welfare, Demography, and Social Engineering
Historically, welfare states intertwined abortion policy with demographic planning. Sweden’s 1930s social‑democratic government legalised abortion for “social indications” partly to reduce poverty and improve national stock—an intervention described by scholars as social eugenics. In contrast, post‑war France restricted abortion, fearing population decline after heavy wartime losses. These divergent paths illustrate how macro‑economic goals shape the moral valuation of reproduction.
Technologies of Selection
Prenatal Diagnosis and Selective Abortion
Ultrasound imaging (1970s), amniocentesis (1960s), and, more recently, non‑invasive prenatal screening (2011) have normalised routine risk assessment of chromosomal conditions such as trisomy 21, 18, and 13. Studies in Denmark and Iceland show termination rates exceeding 95 % for foetuses diagnosed with Down syndrome, producing near‑elimination of new births with that condition. Disability scholars call this a “silent eugenics” enacted through individual choice but structured by societal stigma and health‑system counselling protocols.
Assisted Reproduction and Embryo Selection
In vitro fertilisation with pre‑implantation genetic testing (PGT‑A/PGT‑M) enables selection against monogenic disorders and, controversially, for non‑medical traits such as sex. Commercial fertility clinics market “family‑balancing” packages, exporting reproductive tourism to jurisdictions where sex selection is legal. This commodification situates eugenic decision‑making within neoliberal consumer culture, governed by market access rather than state fiat.
CRISPR and Germline Editing
Since the 2018 announcement of gene‑edited babies in China, bioethicists have warned that germline interventions could crystallise a new era of speciated inequality: heritable enhancements available only to wealthy elites. While international consensus currently prohibits clinical applications, private ventures explore somatic embryo editing, suggesting future intersections with abortion when unintended edits or off‑target effects require pregnancy termination.
