In scientific terms, our granddaughter Juliana (that’s her picture to the right) was born ‘imperfect.’ She has what is called Kabuki Syndrome. It affects about 1 in 32,000 people. There are a number of physical and mental markers attached to it – from hypotonia (low muscle tone) to mild to moderate intellectual disability and lots of things in between.

Due to the discovery of the MLL2 gene mutations that are responsible for approximately 75% of individuals with Kabuki Syndrome, a clinical blood test is now available to help with diagnosis.

Nancy Snyderman, the chief medical editor of NBC’s Today Show, “explained to viewers that it’s just good science to abort an unborn child that may have a genetic disorder, explaining that testing for such conditions, ‘gives parents a chance to decide whether they’re going to continue that pregnancy or not. This is the science of today.’”

Snyderman went on to say that “the future will be such that you’ll find out that your child may have a genetic hit. You can fix that genetic problem, and improve your chance, a child’s chance…” What if there is no way to fix a “genetic problem”? Then what?

Co-host Savannah Guthrie raised the issue of ethics about aborting children with genetic flaws. Snyderman didn’t blink: “Well, I’m pro-science, so I believe that this is a great way to prevent diseases.”

What happens if a genetic ‘flaw’ isn’t found until after a child is born? Would it be ‘ethical’ to kill him or her in the name of science?

What constitutes a genetic disorder? Where on the spectrum of genetic disorders do we draw the line? Let’s face it – no one is perfect. Just go to the mall if you don’t believe me. What if a day comes when doctors can determine the IQ and physical stature in utero with a simple blood test? Where does genetic imperfection stop on the spectrum? Will the State intervene in the name of healthcare costs and intervene in pregnancies and demand that babies be aborted, and if not aborted relegated to second-class status?

Is the storyline in the film Gattaca (1997) in our future? (Also see James Jordan’s perceptive review of the film.)

The film presents a biopunk vision of a future society driven by liberal eugenics where potential children are selected through preimplantation genetic diagnosis to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents. A genetic registry database uses biometrics to instantly identify and classify those so created as “valids” while those conceived by traditional means are derisively known as “in-valids.” While genetic discrimination is forbidden by law, in practice it is easy to profile a person’s genotype resulting in the valids qualifying for professional employment while the in-valids — considered more susceptible to disease, educational dysfunction and shorter lifespans — are relegated to menial jobs.

I’m glad to see that the eugenic cat is out of the bag. Those of us who have been protesting against abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision saw this coming, and the pro-aborts dismissed it. Now we know.