"NO ONE EXCEEDS THEIR POTENTIAL"

Abortion justified for 'better babies' (Aaron Patrick, July 6 2003, The Age)

James Watson would have aborted his son if a genetic test had been available at the time warning that his child would be born with severe epilepsy.

Declaring "I'm not a sadist", the man who co-discovered DNA said that parents, especially mothers, should have a right of genetic veto over the make-up of their child.

"Any time you can prevent a seriously sick child from being born, it is good for everyone," Dr Watson told The Sunday Age. "Most mothers wouldn't want to have dwarfs." [...]

Dr Watson's refusal to oppose what he concedes could lead to eugenics takes him on to sensitive ethical ground.

For instance, he believes abortions are acceptable where a foetus is found to be genetically inclined to homosexuality.

"If they want to, let them," he said. "My wife really wants a grandchild."

Dr Watson said there is likely to be a genetic component to homosexuality, but the major cause may be hormonal surges during pregnancy. [...]

He also disagrees with the dark predictions of the science-fiction film Gattica, in which genetics determine each person's role in society.

So, let's see if we have this straight: genetic "inferiority" is sufficient to justify killing someone but not to justify discriminating against them? Posted by Orrin Judd at July 8, 2003 9:37 AM