The Point

The Point: ‘Not the Child I Wanted’


John Stonestreet

The “right to choose” is another phrase for eugenics.

Ruth Marcus at The Washington Post recently wrote an editorial confessing “I would have aborted a fetus with Down syndrome. Women need that right.”

Marcus slams proposed laws against identifying and killing preborn babies with Down syndrome, because in her words, “compelling a woman to give birth to a child whose intellectual capacity will be impaired” violates her right to choose.

She even admits that there’s a “creepy, eugenic aspect” to this, but insists that a baby with Down syndrome is not the child she—or most women—want.

Well, what if a woman doesn’t want a child with blue eyes, or doesn’t want a girl? Can she abort them, too? For many in the pro-choice movement, the answer is, “yes.”

Hopefully, an editorialist unashamedly promoting eugenics in the name of the right to choose will cause pro-choicers to reexamine their worldview. And it’s an opportunity for the rest of us to ask those committed to abortion, is that what they mean by ‘the right to choose’?

For more on the culture, visit



  • Facebook Icon in Gold
  • Twitter Icon in Gold
  • LinkedIn Icon in Gold

Have a Follow-up Question?

Want to dig deeper?

If you want to challenge yourself as many others have done, sign up below.


Short Courses

Related Content