A minor change in this week’s answers for pro-choicers from Feminists for Life—they’ve finally moved their bullshit online so everyone can see it! Now you too can see how they answer the most important question, which is what they’re doing to reduce the abortion rate from the front end by agitating for comprehensive sex education and free contraception. And that answer is:
So even though they claim to be an organization dedicated to rooting out the “root causes” of abortion—and there’s only one, which is unwanted pregnancy—they haven’t even taken the first step in that direction. It’s because they’re too busy exploiting disabled people to create the illusion that abortion is selfish. Disability—what if the fetus is or could be disabled?
If actual or potential disability is a reason to devalue children before birth, what cruel message does this send to persons with disabilities who are already born?
Would you say to someone in a wheelchair that s/he should never have been born? That’s the message people get when they talk about “gross fetal anomalies.”
How many artists, musicians, writers with disabilities or no fault brain disease have enriched our world? Would artist Toulouse-Lautrec’s paintings have had a bigger impact if he were taller in stature? What would our world be like without the contributions of artist Van Gogh, musician Beethoven, or writer Sylvia Plath?
Interestingly, Van Gogh, Beethoven, and Sylvia Plath all had disabilities that were not evident in the womb. They’re not even putting a half-assed effort into this, which goes to show how little they care about the stickier issues involving disability rights. By bringing up people who became disabled as they aged due, most likely, to external factors, they’re trying to imply that pro-choicers are somehow running around demanding that we euthanize already existing people, which is untrue.
The ugly truth is that abortion rights does mean that some people, when they find out their child would be born with a birth defect, would terminate the pregnancy. And while that it truly upsetting, the cure is to educate people on disabilities and remove the stigma so that fewer people feel they have no choice. But stripping women of basic rights is not an answer. Freedom means that people will often make choices that aren’t what many of us would like. Instead of stripping them of their right to make certain choices—like not to have a disabled child—it’s better to persuade than limit a critical freedom.
Interestingly, while FFL was all about how easy it is to give your baby away if you can’t care for her last week, they seem to forget that the ban on abortion they seek would mean that disabled children would be put up for adoption as well. The problem is the choice not to adopt means that unfortunately, some people will decide that they aren’t prepared to care for a disabled infant, which was well-noted in the comments at the last thread as their right. I don’t see any language in here about how FFL is prepared to strip people of their right not to adopt while they strip women of our right not to give birth.
Anyway, I’ve addressed the fallacy of the “what if you were never born?!” argument, which, taken to its logical conclusion, means that every person not trying to make a baby this very second is a murderer. And while the fact that everyone wants a perfectly healthy baby is a wrinkle in this situation, I’m not convinced at all that it’s a big enough wrinkle to matter. For one thing, the potential of your child being born with a disability is just one of many factors that lead people to decide not to have a baby right now. I know that there’s a good possibility that if I had a kid, that child would be a larger burden than usual because she would very likely inherit my severe childhood asthma, which is genetic in my family. Is that a factor in my decision not to have children? Probably in the abstract, but mostly because I don’t want children anyway. I suspect that if I did want kids, I would decide to roll with it if that happened.
And that’s why choice is an individual decision and can’t be addressed by the law. Most people’s decisions about child-bearing have many factors, not just one, as this FAQ that FFL has put together implies. To single out disability is to refuse to look at the big picture—a woman with health insurance for her newborn, for instance, is in a much different position than one without when considering whether or not to risk having a baby that could have massive health problems. The cure for that is not to ban abortion, but make sure there’s no babies being born uninsured.
What I find interesting about FFL invoking disability though, is they ignore the “pro-woman” question with regards to reproductive rights and disability. So I’m going to ask it anyway.
Disability—what if the pregnant woman is or could be disabled?
For a “feminist” organization, FFL seems to forget the women they supposed are so “pro” about a lot. For all their concern about theoretical disabilities that fetuses might have, they seem deeply uninterested in the problems of real women with real disabilities who find themselves pregnant and, after weighing their options, feel that they don’t want to strain their body by giving birth. Real concern about disabled people’s rights includes allowing disabled women to have the full range of options for medical care, which includes contraception and abortion if they decide they need those options. Sad as it may be, many disabilities are made much worse by pregnancy.
One disability that is definitely made worse by pregnancy is post-natal depression. And if you’ll recall, the entire country was made quite aware of what happens when people shove this blanket “more babies are always a joy, and saying otherwise means you hate god, babies, men and motherhood” attitude that FFL has on women that aren’t mentally able to have more and more babies, when the worst case scenario happened and Andrea Yates, forbidden by husband and church to control her fertility, flipped out from worsening post-natal depression and killed all five of her children. So much for how real pro-choice feminists are supposed haters of people with disabilities—in the early days of that case, feminists were some of the only people pointing out that Yates was disabled by a very real condition and should be allowed to plead not guilty by reason of insanity.
But that’s a worst case scenario. There are many more mundane stories about disabled women benefitting from their right not to have one baby after another that we don’t hear about. Granted, a lot of anti-choicers say you do have a right not to have babies if you don’t want—you can abstain from sex. But for someone who has a disability that means she can’t have children without risking her health, that means that you are saying that because she’s disabled, she doesn’t have a right to have a sex life like women more capable of having one baby after another are. Which strikes me as one of the big issues of disability rights activism, which is trying to dispel the notion that just because you have a disability doesn’t mean you should be considered asexual.
85 Responses to “Feminists for Life exploits disabled people to strip women of our rights”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Bingo!
Don’t you just love how wingnuts trot out disabled people at their convenience, as if anything BushCo ever did made life any easier for them - particuarly veterans missing limbs after gloryego wars? But they always seem willing to advocate for the “rights” of the disabled when it comes to abortion - never mind that most abortions for birth defects are very extreme and likely non-viable situations - like missing brains. Once again we have the mantra “save the unborn, to hell with the born”.
At least Everett Koop actually adopted throwaway kids.
Not that the democrats are any better at “getting” the Americans With Disability Act - Massachusetts has ignored and avoided compliance as much as possible, because you need somebody’s permission and patronage to be allowed to leave your house and go to work I guess. Or attend functions at the Democratic National Convention. But they are totally ignored, rather than ignored when it is convenient and displayed as a means of righteous bullshit reflected.
I’d also like to point out that the decision of pursuing or terminating a pregnancy in case of fetal disability is not just about a potentially larger economic burden or a desire for a 100% perfect baby. Raising a disabled child is a huge emotional burden and not everyone is ready or capable of undertaking it. People who abort only because they don’t feel capable of loving and welcoming a disabled child shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about it (of course, I know it wasn’t your point, but I just wanted to highlight that it wasn’t just about eugenics or wanting a “picture-perfect baby”).
So, do they address what I guess you would call “semi-viable” kids?
I mean, if your kid has, say, Tay-Sachs they’re going to be dead at avery young age and in a very panful manner.
It’d probably be more humane to abort the pregnancy, in cases like those.
One of the problems with these kinds of conservative organisations is that, philosophically speaking, they don’t feel that sex is particularly necessary.
So, yes, the answer is, if you might pass on your disability to your kid, you just never ever have sex for your whole life.
I don’t know why this is considered a viable response, but it clearly is.
Given that, I had a brainstorm. You like to pound feminists for life for doing, basically, jack crap to reduce unwanted pregnancies. In the same way, one might pound them for doing little to make abstinance viable.
Abstinance only groups are generally tied to conservative groups that view non-procreative sex as sinful, and that feel that husbands should have dominence over their wives.
The thing is, if you want people to avoid pregnancy by avoiding sex, then shouldn’t you heavily support a woman’s choice to say no at any time, and shouldn’t you support anything that gives you safe sexual outlet?
OMG, that’s brilliant. That whole “oh how do you think disabled people feel about how it’s okay to abort disabled fetuses” argument has always ticked me off, because it’s such, such a smokescreen. But that was SO brilliant…reminds me of the day I stumbled across the perfect answer to parental consent to abortion for minors laws, which is–if it’s all about parents’ rights, then you must, to be consistent, equally support laws requiring parental consent to *continued pregnancy* for minors as well–or obviously, it isn’t about parents’ rights, it’s about making abortion specifically as difficult as possible. In this case…if it’s all about disabled people’s feelings, then you must agitate just as strongly for laws to prevent people from giving up disabled babies for adoption as well, because how do you think disabled people feel about how it’s okay to shove disabled babies off on government homes and an often defective foster care system? or obviously, it isn’t about disabled peoples’ feelings, it’s about making abortion specifically as difficult as possible.
Good points, all; I just wanted to mention that in addition to Van Gogh, Beethoven, and Plath, Toulous-Lautrec’s disability didn’t arise until he was well out of the womb. He broke one leg when he was twelve, and it never grew again. He broke his second leg at 14, and it stopped growing as well. Not really something that would come up on an ultrasound…
Fantastic post.
I was waiting for them to tackle this issue, but really wanted to see their answer on women with disabilities and pregnancy. Maybe they would have put “life of the mother� in scare quotes! And they didn’t mention fetal anencephaly either, just ambiguous “disabilities� that some famous artists had. (This is a step away from the Jesus argument.)
And it’s so disingenuous to talk about abortion in this context…it’s the same as sex-selective abortions. The problem is the way societies treat people with disabilities, and in many ways women having abortions in these cases are just coping with the world they are in.
Saddam Hussein’s mother wanted to terminate, but was talked out of it.*
Hey, if FFL can pull that Beethoven shit …
*This is true
Well, not guilty, but certainly not proud. They should be educated, b/c disabilities are so stigmatized in our society.
80% of fetii with Down Syndrome are aborted. DS is a MILD form of retardation, but it’s easily detected, so easily avoided.
My younger, much beloved brother has Down Syndrome, so I’m very familiar with the issues. And while I couldn’t love him more, I’m extremely grateful that none of my children have it.
Would I have aborted over it? Probably not, as I consider myself to be a much better person for having had my brother in my life. But as has been said before, freedom means the freedom to make bad choices or choices others disagree with. So while I think DS is a lame reason to abort, I certainly would never deny anyone the right to make that choice. Because even I considered the options–making that decision is a fundamental right.
All I can do is try to educate others and help discourage discrimination.
B/c how can you ever know what anyone else’s life is like? How can you ever make a decision like having or not having a child for someone else? There’s no way to make a general law–you have to trust people to make the right decisions.
There’s no way to make a general law–you have to trust people to make the right decisions.
Well, that’s exactly my point. That’s why everyone’s decision should be respected, without “pride” or “shame”.
What a slippery slope–I’m kind of surprised, Amanda, to see you write, “while that is truly upsetting.” I don’t think it is. I don’t find it upsetting when someone has an abortion because they’re too young, or too poor, or the timing is awful, or the relationship with the father is practically nonexistent. Why should I be upset if someone has an abortion for any reason?
I dont normally comment here, but this is an issue that I feel very close to on a personal level, as I am a carrier for a chromosomal disorder and know that I have a chance when I become pregnant of the fetus having the disorder. I had a sister born with the disorder that died as an infant, and with the severity of what she had (she would never have walked or talked and would have eventually needed to be institutionalized because of numerous developmental problems, both physical and mental) I have to say that I would most likely abort a fetus knowing that they have this same disorder. I have discussed this with my mother, someone who went through the situation, and she agrees with the decision.
I know this choice isn’t for everyone, and honestly I don’t think I would abort for a disorder such as Down Syndrome for some of the reasons Caren metioned above, but I can’t make that choice for other people. In my situation, I would make the decision because I know the child would have almost no sort of quality of life in any way, and I believe it isn’t fair to knowingly bring such a child into the world. Being that I have been through that situation with my family I think I have earned the right to make the decision. It scares me so much that this choice could be taken away from me, that I could be forced to have a child that I will know from the beginning will have many problems and that will most likely die in infancy. To be forcefully put through that heartache, I just can’t imagine.
Andrea Yates suffered from post partum psychosis, not post partum depression. About 80% of women (and some men) suffer depression after a birth, but only about 1 in 1000 have a complete break with reality, like Yates did.
Add me to the list of folks who don’t agree that this is an “ugly truth.” Such a decision is, in plenty of cases, a sound one.
A friend once asked me “Supposing that being gay were genetic and could be reliably tested for” (we’d just been having Yet Another Argument about the so-called Gay Gene) “would you support homophobes deciding they’d rather abort than have a baby that would grow up to be gay?”
I thought about it. I really had to think hard. I decided, yes.
I wouldn’t agree with their reasoning: I’d think it was hateful and ugly. But I’d support their right to choose to have an abortion, even though I vehemently disagreed with their reasons for making that choice.
To single out disability is to refuse to look at the big picture—a woman with health insurance for her newborn, for instance, is in a much different position than one without when considering whether or not to risk having a baby that could have massive health problems.
This reminds me of a very sad case in Illinois, where the parents of a severely disabled boy “abandoned” him while he was in the hospital. Basically, they left a note in the child’s hospital room saying that it was just too much, and they mentally, physically and financially simply couldn’t care for him anymore.
The next day, they reconsidered and came back and were promptly arrested for child abandonment. No discussion, of course, of the exhaustion that drove the parents to this point. No offering of respite care — after all, they were middle-class, so they should be able to pay for every penny out of their pocket, right?
People who don’t have to deal with a severely disabled child vastly underestimate how much time and money it requires to take care of them, especially since the services available vary so widely from state to state. One of my aunts had custody of my uncle’s severely mentally disabled brother and couldn’t retire to Florida when she wanted to, because there were basically NO services available to him in Florida, and certainly not at the level that they had in Wisconsin.
Re: Toulouse-Lautrec
Actually, if he was taller, he probably would not have persued painting, which he used as an escape from his disability. And he probably would not have gone into brothels and the Moulin Rogue to create his most well-known pieces.
Not that, you know, opening an art history text or thinking matters to these people…
-One Pissed-Off Art Student
I’m a disabled adoptee (thanks Mom and Dad!), and I completely support the right for prospective mothers of potentially disabled children to have abortions. Frankly, I’m not so much into the disability-identity-politics thing — if nobody else in the world ever had to go through the crap you have to go through being disabled (even in western liberal democracies like Canada and the US) ever again, I’d be thrilled. I guess I don’t believe in the law of conservation of misery, although it sounds like FFL does.
In many cases, even in the US and Canada, support systems aren’t up to helping parents cope with the problems of having a disabled child. The Robert Latimer case pretty much says everything that needs to be said about the tragedy of that situation. (On the other hand, cerebral palsy isn’t detectable in utero.)
It’s almost ridiculous to presume that there’s some kind of grave moral wrong about abortion in any case; to do so, you pretty much have to believe in some really weird metaphysics. Once again, we’re getting a stealth religious argument.
Personally, I don’t want to have children. I’m not sure I’d come out of a pregnancy with my health even anything resembling intact, and I’m not sure I’d have the energy or the “good body days” to effectively raise a child. I have also heard that there are genetic predispositions to my condition, and I’d hate to pass them along. On the other hand, I refuse to give up my sex life (such as it is) on the say-so of torment communists and other professional wet-blankets.
Do keep in mind that genetic testing and sonography take place sufficiently beyond the 13 week cut-off that there are usually legal maneuvers to be made to secure an abortion. Because these are second and third-trimester procedures, these abortions are more difficult and complicated and physically demanding than the “broken condom” or other birth control failure types.
Idiot pro-life types want you to think it’s a snap decision without controls made for convenience. If a pregnancy gets this far before the state of the fetus can be known, it isn’t hardly a toilet flush and go situation arrived at without thought or challenge.
Jesurgislac,
Yup, same conclusion. It’s also a question that lies at the heart of a 1990s play called “Twilight of the Golds.”
Oh sure. You find out your baby is going to be born deformed and/or retarded–and other people are going to force you to have that child.
To have a child hated and, worse, feared months before its birth is certainly going to make for a fine upbringing.
Toulouse-Lautrec’s physical issues were also not noted in the womb but rather after leg injuries at ages 12 and 14 caused them to cease growing.
Jesurgislac-
I think at some point this evolves into a different question, and one that our society may have to address in the future: should people be allowed to decide what their kid will be like? I think there is a real possibility that the government would have to be involved at some point. What if people were only choosing to have boys, for example? That could be a real problem. Anyhow, this point is tangential, but I just want to point out that when you are talking about characteristics of children that are otherwise healthy, you start to get into a different debate.
One of my best friends died at 21 from cystic fibrosis.
If I ever found out I was pregnant with a fetus with cystic fibrosis, I’d abort it immediately and try for one that didn’t. Not because I don’t think my friend’s life had value, but because without the disease she still would have been herself, she wouldn’t have had to suffer so much, and she’d still be with me.
Going with Jesurgislac’s thread, I’d support the bigoted parent’s right to abort if the “gay gene” were detected, because denying them the right to do so would probably lead to them heaping a lifetime of emotional abuse and “deprograming” on the poor kid once it was born. But as I am one of those people who “choose to be” rather than one of the “born that way” I might have a bit of luxury.
A long-winded Here Here to Scarlet.
This is such a huge trojan horse for the anti-choice crowd, because it gets people tut-tutting about what a horrible thing eugenics is but really it’s just a way to get women back in the kitchen and dependant on men.
Most women, without some serious genetic crap in their family history, when they find out that they’re pregnant, are going to assume that the baby is 100% “normal.” (I apologize for the crass use of the word). When they consider whether or not they are capable of caring for the child, they are going to assume that the child will not need special accomodations made for any sort of mental, emotional, or physical challenges.
When the doctor comes back with news that there will be challenges involved in raising the child, they need to be able to re-evaluate whether or not they are capable of meeting those needs without being dismissed. And yes, telling a woman to simply MOVE out of her third-floor walkup because the baby has a hole in its spine is taking a lot of liberties with her financial situation.
But the most dramatic of accomodations that a woman will likely be made to make for a child with a disability is the sacrifice of income and social nets when she is required to stay at home 24-7 with a child who will never advance physically or emotionally past the age of 2.
A woman, when presented with the reality of her pregnancy, has to be allowed an honest assessment of her capability of caring for the child that until that point she was only prepared to make the same sacrifice for as her friends and peers made for theirs. Friends of the family were talked into keeping a pregnancy by a doctor who claimed he had an “experimental treatment” for a severe genetic disorder discovered in utero that had the trifecta of serious physical, emotional, and mental problems (unfortunately, I can’t find the medical name for this disorder). So they reluctantly saw the pregnancy through and have a child who will probably not live past the age of five, who requires constant supervision, and on top of that they’re half a million dollars in debt with medical bills because the experimental treatment turned out to be “I was talking out of my ass.” The anti-choice crowd isn’t exactly clamouring to bail them out for carrying the pregnancy to term.
But to claim that allowing women to abort fetuses with these conditions will suddenly lead to eugenics is patently false and extremely insulting to women — I talked to women who were incapable of conceiving and they have adopted children with disabilities and would never have aborted a viable fetus for something like mental retardation or physical impairment. Children with disabilities still exist in our culture despite abortion, just like children themselves have continued to exist despite abortion. To claim that no one would want a kid with Down Syndrome or Spinal Bifida and so late term abortion (and all abortion now that we’re at it) should be outlawed is insulting to women, and it’s insulting to people who have disabilities, and the families who love them.
Feminists for Life can fuck right off.
Well, first of all, it’s major surgery which in most cases could have been avoided if birth control were more accessible.
Many women, much as we may disagree with them, believe abortion is wrong, even murder. They feel forced into a “choice” that they believe is profoundly immoral by economic circumstances. Why should this upset us? Empathy, maybe?
Well, first of all, it’s major surgery which in most cases could have been avoided if birth control were more accessible.
Major surgery? Not really, even if it’s done at 20 weeks (the typical time an in-depth ultrasound is performed on most pregnancies). It’s a surgical procedure, yes, but major? Hardly. Honestly, getting my wisdom teeth pulled was harder to go through physically than my D&C.
I like Michael Berube’s thought that assholes raising disabled kids isn’t a good thing. (I’m sure he worded it better.)
One thing that really angers me about this argument is that there is so little support for parents raising disabled children (and those children when they become adults.)
I bet the overlap between the Right to Life crowd in a town and the folks complaining bitterly about how much the school system is spending on disabled kids is pretty high. They probably fear “socialized medicine” as well.
the “what if YOU were aborted” argument always sounds so self centered to me. what if i were never born? so what, i wouldnt be here, and i would never have known the diffrence. geez way to think your life makes all that much of an impact on the world.
Jesurgislac- I was thinking of posting something similiar. I agree with your post. Fortunately i don’t think that there is a “gay gene”, but multiple factors that contribute to homosexuality and by the time homosexuality can be predicted in utero it will be accepted.
So it’s ok to shame a woman who aborts an abnormal fetus and tell her she’s a shitty person, but it’s not ok to shame a woman who has an abortion because she simply doesn’t want a child? Women should just do what they need to do and be able to do it without having a finger wagged at them.
Well, first of all, it’s major surgery which in most cases could have been avoided if birth control were more accessible.
Major surgery? Not in my experience. I’ve had dental surgery which was more painful, more invasive and had a longer recovery time. And I got pregnant while using birth control regularly and correctly.
Down’s syndrome isn’t always a “mild” disability. The retardation may be mild, but the physical problems–heart conditions, poor muscle tone, vision, and hearing–also pose difficulty, which is why many Down’s people don’t live to old age. My sweet cousin Annie died three years ago at 41 from a cardiac condition directly related to her having Down’s.
Would there be people whom, if allowed, would abort due to the “gay gene” or it being the “wrong sex”? I have no doubt. But I would still defend the right of a woman to abort without apology and, more importantly, without justification. Even those who claim themselves to be pro-choice will put caveats on what reason for abortion is “acceptable.”
I agree that nobody else’s approval should be required for any reason a woman has to get an abortion. However, nobody else’s approval should also be insisted upon, either. It’s always a woman’s body, and therefore *always* morally and legally her choice to continue a pregnancy or not. However, as with nearly any action a person can take, even if it’s legal and her right to take it, doesn’t mean anybody else has to pretend she thinks that the former’s reason for her action is particularly savory or desirable. Nor should the latter be castigated for her opinion on the subject *as long as she does not extend her actions from expressing her opinion to actually attempting to block the former from taking that action.*
It has ALWAYS amazed me that the pro-life crowd (as a whole, I have met exceptions) refuses to adequately address the issue of unwanted children.
I understand that the pro-life position is (usually) born in self-righteousness, and therefore the “solutions” of abstinence (never contraception) and adoption (because, as noted above, there are no judgment calls made by prospective adopters… /sarcasm) seem perfectly reasonable.
The issue is, to me, the gap between the ideal (sure, it’d be NICE if we were all straight, all virgins until we married the right person, and could emotionally and financially handle all the healthy babies we could produce) and reality (humans come in a wide variety of mental, physical, emotional, and sexual capacities; and life really doesn’t tend to happen the way you plan it).
“The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any developed country. It is twice as high as England, France & Canada, three times as high as Sweden and four times as high as The Netherlands.” — Mary’s Shelter data
That’s because our Puritanical public social policy substitutes “morality” for realistic ethics. Results speak louder than preaching. Except in the US, apparently.
If Feminists for Life wants to create a culture of life where all life is respected I am all for that. We can open people’s minds to the fact that disability, gender, and sexual orientation are not barriers to leading productive and important lives but changing the culture and changing the law are not necessarily the same thing.
The Americans with Disabilites Act has been around for a while but that does not mean the people installing the ramps and reading the the signs understand why its important.
Any second now…*taps foot*…waits for actual culture of life…respectful treament of all people…any second
sure, it’d be NICE if we were all straight, all virgins until we married the right person, and could emotionally and financially handle all the healthy babies we could produce
I disagree. That is not a nice choice for everyone. Establishing the notion that people who choose to have sex before marriage are just weak allows elbow room for legal debate. There should be no debate in a free country about restricting the harmless pleasures of others based on religious dogma.
I was waiting for that.
Let me clarify: I am aware that it’s not the nice choice for everyone, or even a majority of people, realistically. But then, it’s an ideal. Not your ideal, not even necessarily my ideal (I certainly never fit The Mold, though at one point I tried very hard).
The point I was trying to make was _not_ that people who don’t accomplish the Ideal are weak; rather, that they are the norm, and expecting everyone to conform to one’s own worldview is, aside from all else, a grevious and willful ignorance of reality.
mpowell: What if people were only choosing to have boys, for example? That could be a real problem.
It’s already happening; http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/09/news/india.php
And this is an example of misogyny and patriarchal bullshit from the other end of the spectrum. Women forced, whether physically or socially, to have abortions so they can try again “to get it right” and have a boy child.
There have been tons of articles written about how eventually this discrepancy has the potential to destabilize India (a nuclear power! Destabilized! WhooHoo!) and will result in the further dehumanization of women (in a country where turning down a man’s proposal–or your father doing so–could get you acid splashed in your face.) and an increase in bridenapping. (Kidnapping and rape but it’s okay! They’re married now!)
And that answer is:
Copulating crickets? I don’t get it.
not just crickets, crickets doin’ it.
/most conservative men have severe ovopositor envy.
Christina: Disallowing selective abortion of female fetuses leads to selective abandonment of female infants. Take your pick.
” And while that it truly upsetting, the cure is to educate people on disabilities and remove the stigma so that fewer people feel they have no choice.”
Oh, no no no. Either abortion is wrong or it is not. If abortion isn’t wrong (and I don’t believe it is) then the reason for having an abortion doesn’t matter. If it is, then no reason is good enough.
The term “disabled” covers a wide range of conditions-some very mild, some extreme. Parental capability covers a wide range. It’s not wrong not to want a child that is disabled. I believe everyone facing a wanted pregnancy wants a healthy baby. At least, I never heard of anybody hoping and praying for a disabled child because the experience is going to be so emotionally enriching. The very active and public campaign against drinking and smoking during pregnancy is ALL about creating healthy babies. (Shame on them for discrimiting against disabled people by implying that healthy babies are better!)
People upthread have already made the point that disabilities can be profound. It’s not always about whether society can support a family unit through the life of a disabled member. It’s also about letting individuals decide what they’re capable of dealing with.
Ivy,
Interestingly enough, these days couples are self-selecting disabled children through IVF. I have heard about this most often with deafness. Usually these parents have the same disabilty themselves. It seems… mean, somehow, but there you go.
My elder (by 18 months) brother has Down’s Syndrome - severe Down’s Syndrome; his mental age has never to my knowledge been assessed but he’s essentially incapable of doing anything for himself. My mother went on to have me because her doctor told her to have another child as soon as possible: chances were it would be ‘normal’ and ‘make up’ for the disabled child (bear in mind this was the 1950’s, way before any kind of testing was available). She tried to care for us equally, and for my younger brother when he was born 4 years later, but the strain of caring for a disabled child 24/7 meant that we always came second. I’m not whinging: that’s just the way things were back then - and luckily in this country there are facilities for Down’s Syndrome individuals, though you may have to fight to get them. My brother started at a special school, went on to a ‘training centre’ - they did train the less severely disabled kids and some were able to hold down simple jobs - which kept him occupied and gave my mother some time to herself. By then, though, and without going into details of the dynamics, the damage to the family was done: I couldn’t wait to leave home and have never returned (though we phone the parents every weekend and see them every now and then: we live in different cities and have no transport), and my younger brother disowned the family as soon as he was old enough to leave.
When I was pregnant with our son, my first test gave him a 50% chance of having Down’s Syndrome. I went for an amniocentesis (which carried a high risk of miscarriage) to check, then spent two nightmare weeks waiting for the results - which came back clear. But in that two weeks Ken and I discussed what we’d do if the foetus was DS, and decided we’d abort (it was primarily my decision: it would never even occur to Ken to try to tell me what to do with my body). I’d seen the wreck the syndrome could make of a family, and wasn’t prepared to go through that. Nor did I want to have a child that might only have a half-life - my mother never made the connection, but on the knitted, tatty woollen doll my elder brother always carried (and still does), he’d tied the wrists and ankles together, and tightly wrapped two handerkerchiefs around the eyes and the mouth. I swear that doll represents himself, as though he’s aware on some level of everything that’s wrong with him and everything he’s missing.
My elder brother still lives with my parents, and still requires near-constant care. It isn’t something I’d have the patience or love to be able to do.
Just my two pen’north…
Oh, no no no. Either abortion is wrong or it is not. If abortion isn’t wrong (and I don’t believe it is) then the reason for having an abortion doesn’t matter. If it is, then no reason is good enough.
Yeah, I have to agree. I have a cousin with DS, and my aunt and uncle have had a tough time raising her, but my aunt fiercely defends her choice to anyone who questions it. I do too. The point is it’s her choice. If the choice is based on bigotry, argue on the point about bigotry, i.e. as in Jesurgislac’s example, argue that choosing to abort is perfectly ok, but being bigoted against LGBT people who have been born is not. But never argue that a woman doesn’t have the right to choose based on her own reasons. That really undermines being pro-choice. You can choose to give birth or to have an abortion. Everything else is a different issue.
And that answer is:
Copulating crickets? I don’t get it.
I *think* (Amanda, please correct me if I’m wrong) it’s a reference to the old gag in movies/cartoons/what have you about an awkward silence (say, in response to an unfunny joke by a stand-up comedian), being peppered with crickets chirping. Like:
Animated Comedian: And I said, that’s no goat, that’s my wife!
[shot of an unsmiling audience]
*crickets chirping*
And they’re copulating because… it’s Pandagon?
I know a woman whose brother has the most severe form of DS it’s possible to have, and he’s gone through an incredible amount in terms of hardcore physical ailments. His sister loves him so much, and she’s been basically his primary caregiver and advocate for years, she’s goes toe to toe with the city, the county, the state, the feds on a regular basis on his behalf. Much of her adult live has been devoted to him. He means everything to her, and she wouldn’t hesitate for one second to terminate a fetus with a disability. It’s not because she doesn’t love her brother, it’s not because she needs to be educated, it’s not because she hates the disabled. It’s because every year, it gets harder and harder as the social support and available resources that she and he need to survive and thrive become more and more scarce. Even for those who have te patience and temprament and emotional strength to be caregivers, this country makes it almost impossible sometimes.
I don’t think I was clear enough in my first post.
When I say all I can do is advocate for handicapped, I mean that working to decrease the stigma of mental handicaps is the only ethical thing I can do. It would be nice if DS fetii weren’t aborted so much b/c of mental handicaps. (yes, there can be esophagal and heart conditions associated with it, but those would also be detected on ultrasound. To my mind, physical ailments are a different issue from mental ones.)
Same for societies where gender balance is getting screwed up. We need to improve rights for women and change the idea that boys are better.
Because simply not wanting a child is MORE than a good enough reason to have an abortion. No one should be forced to carry a fetus to term. EVER.
I do think that removing those stigmas would reduce abortions for those reasons. Not eliminate them, but reduce them. Personally, I think that’s a good thing, as I like girls and people with DS.
But while I personally would like to reduce those abortions, I don’t think I have any right to judge any other individual’s choice. No one should ever be forced to have any child, normal or not. That’s fundamental, and I’m not sure that came out in my first post.
I think you put it perfectly Caren. I don’t think that reducing the stigma surrounding disability is ever a bad thing and if it results in better health care for people with disabilities and more support for families with disabilities, it’s a great thing! Reducing the amount of abortions for reasons of disability may follow naturally from that point and I think that’s good too, because I think diversity in all people and abilities is a good thing. My job is actually a family support coordinator, I find services and staff to provide respite for families with children who have disbilities, and I think that more services like that could be a huge help for families. As someone with a sister who has a developmental disability, I understand the havoc that raising a child with a disability can raise, so while I won’t ever condemn or judge someon for making that choice, I think giving them choices and supports to raise the child should they choose is a very good and feminist goal.
Also, FFL needs to watch out with the blatant exaggeration. When they say “gross fetal anamolies” they aren’t usually talking a mild case of spina bifida or down syndrome. They are talking about babies with severe, fatal or life threatning defects. My son was described as having gross fetal anamolies, because he had a variety of fatal physical defects. And you’ll notice they leave out the question of fetuses/babies like my son who couldn’t survive after birth, no matter what we did.
My sister was born mentally retarded, or whatever politically correct name you care to use. She’s like an eternal 5yo needing 24/7 supervision. My mom is 86, has macular degeneration, almost completely blind now, and almost completely deaf even with two hearing aids unless you’re willing to shout yourself hoarse. Mom sits in a chair mostly, but at least she’s a warm body for when my sister gets home from the special education center and I’m still at work. There is not enough money for a nursing home for either of them. I’ve heard too many first-hand horror stories about what goes on in public wards, so dumping my sister into one of them is out of the question.
I wish to fucking hell neither my sister nor I was ever born. I think about suicide every day, but of course I can’t. I don’t make enough to afford health insurance or retirement for myself, all my money goes toward keeping the roof from leaking and the lights on. They’ve been on SS for years, locked into a rate which started out at a pittance then and it’s a pittance now. Oh, and my teeth have started to fall out and I can’t afford proper dental care, which doesn’t help my job prospects.
Coping with chronic disability, either your own or someone else’s, is not a “learning experience”, nor is it a “blessing in disguise”. It’s fucking hell on earth and abortion would have been the kindest choice.
One more thing. I guess what I meant to say (besides whinging) is that a wee little baby or child with disabilities is still cute and cuddly in spite of the disability, and brings out the most protective instincts in us all. They are not so cute when they’re 53 and drooling and having seizures and wetting themselves and screaming.
I fail to see the net benefit of people with retardation on their families or on society. None of the stories people shared above seemed particularly good. Of course, those are their choices to make, and society should provide support for families stuggling with disabled members. I see no reason, however, to encourage more people with disabilities to be born.
And Caren, I believe women should be able to abort a fetus for any reason, or no reason. And I don’t feel there should be shame attached to that decision. It’s a little silly to compare aborting girl fetuses with aborting fetuses with defects. Being female is not a defect, and allowing for societal changes, a girl will have a chance to grow up to be a useful, productive member of society. Allowing for societal changes to improve their care and support, a mentally handicapped person is still mentally handicapped.
It would be nice if DS fetii weren’t aborted so much b/c of mental handicaps. (yes, there can be esophagal and heart conditions associated with it, but those would also be detected on ultrasound. To my mind, physical ailments are a different issue from mental ones.)
Because DS is a chromosomal disorder, there are a whole host of physical problems that go along with it, whether they’re obvious at birth or develop over time. They can be severe or mild problems, but the life expectancy for a person with DS is around 45.
I fail to see the net benefit of people with retardation on their families or on society. None of the stories people shared above seemed particularly good.
Well, for all of the whinging, they are still people, and often pretty great people, at that. My severely retarded “cousin” (my aunt’s brother-in-law) was, most of the time, a sweet and loving guy who was very social and loved to interact with people. If you make the choice, there are compensations.
Anony, I’m more sorry than I can say that your life sucks so badly. I’m assuming the county you live in doesn’t offer respite care?
anonymous, I don’t want to sound patronizing because you may already have already researched and exhausted your available options to the best of your ability–but there may be alternatives to hellish public wards for your sister. If there is a branch of a disabled advocacy group anywhere near you, or hell, if you can contact one on the Web, they may be able to point you to resources for help and alternatives.
I fail to see the net benefit of people with retardation on their families or on society.
It’s not really society’s business whether people are having babies that will be a “net benefit”, and it’s not really any of your business what a family chooses regarding abortion, is it?
I hope that you are genetically and physically perfect in any way. I mean, I’d hate to have somebody tsk’ing about how the world needs one less person with whatever imperfections you yourself happen to have.
On the faux-lifers, if they truly cared about the disabled, they’d be out there fighting for more resources for disabled persons and their families, so that nobody would have to live the nightmare anonymous describes.
I guess what I meant to say (besides whinging) is that a wee little baby or child with disabilities is still cute and cuddly in spite of the disability, and brings out the most protective instincts in us all. They are not so cute when they’re 53 and drooling and having seizures and wetting themselves and screaming.
I think that one of the things that doesn’t manifest itself until later is how much harder is to care for an adult with disabilities than it is to care for a child with disabilities. Parents expect to have to care for little kids, but they also expect them to grow up eventually. When a child isn’t going to progress past a mental age of 7 or so, it seems alright when they’re 7. Less so when they’re 40.
p.s. anonymous, not to be preachy, but can I put in a word for 1-800-SUICIDE if necessary?
I understand that there is a lot of fear of slippery slopes leading to the end of choice, but I don’t think that there is a substantial threat in this case. One can do things that are not in and of themselves wrong for really bad reasons. For example, choosing to have a child in and of itself isn’t generally considered to be wrong (although I know some regular readers here might disagree), but many have really bad reasons for making that choice (ex. to try to keep the marriage together). The same is true of pretty much any decision that humans make, including the decision to have an abortion. That does not mean that the government should step into peoples private decisions, only that the moral status of an act is independent of the moral status of the motive behind the act. If an act is legal, the reason for acting is irrelevant on a legal level, but not on a personal moral level.
It’s not really society’s business whether people are having babies that will be a “net benefit�
No, but it’s not really society’s business to lay on a bunch of pre-emptive guilt by telling people “no, having a retarded baby is totally an awesome spiritual journey, and you’ll be the better for it”, either. Just from what I’ve read here, these individuals wreaked a terrible toll on those around them. It’s as though they were abusive just by being alive. I’m sure that’s the height of callousness, but does a person have the right to wreck the lives of everyone around them? Even if they don’t mean to?
I don’t see how they do. I’m all for mental illlness not being stigmatized, but some of that stigma is there because mental illness doesn’t just affect the person with the illness - it can affect everyone in their life. And you can’t take a pill for someone else’s mental illness.
Aborting a fetus with a profound mental defect? It’s an act of mercy to the mother and everyone around her, from the stories I’ve heard here. Better before an actual person is in the picture - before it’s had a chance to develop into someone who can’t stop hurting you, but you can’t stop caring about, either.
Why is my comment still stuck in moderation? Grr.
Brief version:
- DS is a chromosomal disorder that causes BOTH mental and physical problems.
- As with all human interactions, sometimes severely disabled people are interesting people
- I hope Anonymous can find some respite care
Why do I keep getting moderated? That’s twice now.
Just from what I’ve read here, these individuals wreaked a terrible toll on those around them. It’s as though they were abusive just by being alive.
I’m not sure “callous” is quite the word for blaming people who have disabilities for creating extra work for the people who brought them into the world. Perhaps you could go over to the folks at Not Dead Yet, and suggest the only decent thing for them to do is off themselves, so as not to abuse anyone else by their continuing to draw breath. Or pop over to Michael Berube and let him know you think that it would have been a blessing and a mercy to Mrs. Berube if their son Jaime had never been born.
It’s not society’s business to lay a bunch of pre-emptive guilt on a pregnant woman by telling her that she’d be doing herself, her family and probably the entire planet a favor by aborting a disabled fetus.
I appreciate all the pro-choice comments above. I firmly believe that a woman must fight to retain control of her own body and never cede that control to anyone. But some of the comments about disability are so jarring I just want to say a few words.
My partner is crippled. She’s crippled, but she’s “healthy.” Deaf people or one-armed peoplem, or whatever, can be healthy. Sometimes the better word to describe certain people with disabilities is “different,” because they aren’t actually sick.
People are scared of that kind of different. My partner is smart, beautiful, funny, sexy, sarcastic. She kicks my ass in so many ways. Yet, you would not believe the prejudice she’s faced since she became wheelchair bound.
I always thought I was very open-minded and that, as a lesbian, I knew what prejudice felt like. But when the hospital staff told us to find a disability support group, we both recoiled. We said to ourselves, we’re integrated and functional, not marginalized and sad, like people in disability support groups, and this accident on a summer day won’t drive us there. It was ridiculous, because it turns out that the physically disabled people we’ve met have been just like us, but funnier, tougher, wiser, and somehow kinder.
My only point is, people are right to say that disabilities vary widely in their manifestations and severity, but I’m telling you, there’s still a tremendous amount of prejudice against disabled people — kids and adults — even when they are truly functional (given a few tools). Many people still treat them like idiotic monkey people, even in supposedly sophisticated, urban parts of the country. Others are well meaning but still somehow slightly scared of people with disabilities.
So, I’m quite sure that someone, a well-meaning someone, would have aborted my partner if her disability had occured in the womb, without ever having realized what a foolish move it was. Honestly, I think maybe there’s a point at which a disability becomes so severe that there are good justifications for ending a pregnancy, but it creeps me out how little people know about what the different lines entail. Disability is a complex and sophisticated area that most of us grope around in like blind one-armed cripples who just wish everyone would be, well, as perfect as we are.
I think anonymous’s heart-breaking story should also remind us that coping with a disabled child doesn’t just affect parents, but also the whole family, especially siblings. Because when you have a person who will never be able to lead an independent life at all, the economic and emotional burden of caring for them often falls on brothers or sisters after parents die or become too old or too sick to do it themselves. And they never had the opportunity to make a choice at all.
So there are many factors at play here. Like someone said above, even if we lived in a perfect world where disability isn’t stigmatized, with facilities a-plenty, the burden of having to care for a disabled child 24/7 even when s/he’s a grown-up would still be huge. Imagine being 70 and having to care for a 40 year old person who cannot wash or dress themselves without help? And then knowing that after you die, your other child will have to do it and therefore see his or her quality of life fall dramatically?
So it’s terribly unfair to be judgemental of people who abort disabled fetuses, even when their disabilities could be considered “mild” like Down’s (even though the severity of the disability is quite difficult to assess in utero, so who’s to say it’s a “mild” form of the disability anyway?). It’s also terribly callous to assume people take this often heart-wrenching decision (because many of these fetuses were dearly wanted) because they are “shitty” or “selfish”.
Honestly, I think maybe there’s a point at which a disability becomes so severe that there are good justifications for ending a pregnancy, but it creeps me out how little people know about what the different lines entail.
The whole point is that nobody should ever ask a woman who wants to abort to “justify” herself. It’s a deeply personal decision, usually taken after much thought and many discussions with the close family. Nobody else is entitled to pass judgement on her and decide whether her abortion was “justified” or not. You may or may not like her reasons for doing it (if she feels inclined to mention them at all because it’s nobody’s damn business) but, at the end of the day, they are HER reasons and should therefore be respected.
You guys are kinda mean to the disabled.
Anyway, the (non-abortion-related) interesting question here is slightly deeper then what some people may think, and it generally involves the distinction between “disability” and “excentircity”, which is not, in fact, clearly drawn.
I was reading a terrible article about autism in People magazine, and one of the things I noticed was that people were constantly talking about the search for a cure, without addressing what, precisely, that would mean.
Autism, and its cousin, Asperger’s syndrome, is a disorder which shades subtly all the way back to normalcy. In other words, it’s perfectly possible o be only a little bit autistic. It’s also possible to be quite severely autistic and yet sort of reverse-engineer a way of thinking that works as effectively as “normal” thinking. Temple Grandin became famous for this, and in print she has actually stated that autism gives her insight into her job that other people don’t have.
Depression is another one; it’s romantically linked to artists, and it does seem to give people an emotional perspective that creates resonant artwork. On the other hand, as we people with depression know, it’s easy for depression to become so severe that it inhibits your ability to do anything, let alone complex tasks like creating a piece of art.
In other words, there’s some happy medium; Somewhere, between normalcy and complete lack of function, there’s an area in which disability becomes, not disability, but an asset.
Is this area big enough that, say, a universal cure for autism administered at birth would be a bad thing? Shit, I don’t know.
here comes some more callousness… i assume that all you folks who want there to be more disabled ppl in the world are prepared to pony up some time/money/a room in your house to help care for the disabled ppl? since the above examples (and a few examples from my personal life) show us that it’s hard to find support to care for disabled ppl, then clearly if we want to produce more ppl w/disabilities who cannot care for themselves we are going to need a better support system. that means more financing, more real estate to build more care/training facilities, more training for the ppl who will staff these facilities… you see where i’m going w/this? and that’s just for ppl who are born w/disabilities! then we add to that number the ppl who are made disable by accidents and the like. i figure that if we suggest that the anti-choice folks need to support the babies that would be produced if abortions were illegal, then the same imperative applies to providing care for the disabled.
Christopher, you’re not talking about disabilities here, but mental conditions. Autistic people are not mentally retarded, they are mentally ill.
I suffer from chronic depression and I agree that it can be debilitating, although not nearly as much as even mild forms of autism, but mental illnesses are NOT disabilities per se.
I guess a line could be drawn between “eccentricity” and “disability” (or rather, in this case, “mental illness”): When a person suffers so much from a condition that it prevents her/him from leading a satisfying life (from his or her own point of view), I guess we’re crossing over to “mental condition” territory. People with Asperger’s are usually very much able to be independent and live their lives to the full. But a cure for autism would be great, because severe cases of autism are pure hell. A friend of my mother’s has an autistic son. She refused to put him in an institution because she would have felt like she was abandoning him. At 7, he’s still wearing diapers and he’s getting more and more violent. His mom is in a state of mental and physical exhaustion, her marriage is wrecked. She can’t even visit her sister with him because he’s already tried to hurt his cousin. So, yes and big mighty YES, a cure for autism would be great. I don’t know if it’s “kinda mean to the disabled”, but mental illness is NOT “romantic”, no matter what you read in the papers.
It’s a little silly to compare aborting girl fetuses with aborting fetuses with defects. Being female is not a defect, and allowing for societal changes, a girl will have a chance to grow up to be a useful, productive member of society. Allowing for societal changes to improve their care and support, a mentally handicapped person is still mentally handicapped.
It’s exactly the same. Mentally handicapped people can be useful and productive members of society as well, and writing them off as you do above is EXACTLY the kind of stigma I fight.
In countries where having a girl is demonized (expensive dowries, only a son can send his dad to heaven, etc.) a girl is seen as a burden. The families who abort them have a “good” reason for doing so in their society, which is why it’s so important to raise their consciousnesses and teach them that females are HUMAN.
And, yes, raven, I do take care of mentally handicapped. My brother has DS, as I said in my first post. We volunteer at his facility and donate time and money. When my parents die, I will be responsible for him–not b/c they have forced that on me, as they have done everything they can to make sure I don’t feel like I have to take care of him–he’s their responsibility not mine. But he is my brother, and I love him.
Anonymous, I’m sorry your life is so hard. I think you, personally, need support. Do you live anywhere where you could get support–maybe a university study? Because you sound depressed, not that you don’t have good reason, but YOU need help, too. My mom took care of my grandfather at home when he had Parkinson’s, so I know how incredibly draining being the sole caretaker can be. Please take care of yourself.
Mnem, DS is a syndrome, which means there are a variety of symptoms associated with it. My brother is about as severely retarded as DS gets, and he has Oral Motor Apraxia, so he doesn’t talk. He has no health problems. DS no longer have life expectancies of 45 years. People used to shuttle them into institutions (and I’ve seen them) where they had NO therapy/support. They were like ragdolls, as ANYONE who was completely ignored their entire life might be. Even in the early 70s, when my brother was born, my parents were advised to shut him away.
Now that people with DS are treated more like humans and given proper support they are finding their average life expectancies are increasing to the 60s and beyond. If otherwise healthy, they are expected to have a normal lifespan.
I don’t want to preach or get too far off topic, but I’ve just read too many posts saying that from what they read here, aborting mentally handicapped sounds like a good idea. I am a better person and a better parent b/c of my brother. Besides the love and fun, I’ve had to learn patience and to control my Irish temper. I’ve had to put up with discrimination in a way I probably never would have been exposed to as a white American. And he lives in a college-campus-like facility with hundreds of other people who have families who love and cherish them as much as we do him.
That doesn’t change or invalidate anonymous’ life. I think it clarifies that having a child is COMPLICATED, and that only the individuals involved (the pregnant woman) has a right or responsibility to determine whether or not she wants to bring a child, any child, or any specific child to term. To paraphrase Voltaire, I may disagree with your reasons for aborting, but I will fight to the death for your right to make that decision. The alternative, forced pregnancy, is fundamentally unacceptable.
That said, fuck anyone who says my brother’s life is worthless or that he isn’t a useful, productive member of society. And fuck the society that fosters that belief.
Sometimes the better word to describe certain people with disabilities is “different,� because they aren’t actually sick.
No, a 30-year-old man with little to no language ability who can’t stop drooling on himself and needs to wear diapers is definately sick. That person isn’t just “different”; he’s broken in a way that undermines his very humanity.
Just because there’s a body there, doesn’t mean there’s a human being residing in it. And the drastic censure that moralizing busybodies direct at people who come to realize this and are open about it is what shatters lives and families.
I understand that people care about their family members, though. That’s natural, obviously. That’s why abortion is the optimal course of action, in my opinion. Better to avert that life before you’re attached.
Yet, you would not believe the prejudice she’s faced since she became wheelchair bound.
I guess I see a major, if perhaps illusory, distinction between disabilities that affect “the meat” and disabilities that affect “the mind.” Someone in a wheelchair doesn’t lose their fundamental humanity. But the mind is the seat of the self. If there’s no mind there, there’s no self there. Somebody forgot to turn the lights off before they left, like Terri Schiavo.
I’m not advocating euthanasia of the mentally retarded. But the care that they require shouldn’t be something that destroys a family. If anonymous’s family had been destroyed by sexual abuse, for instance, we would prosecute the offender. But if the destruction was wreaked by an innocent woman’s need for extraordinary care, what recourse do they have?
None, and that’s the tragedy. There’s no easy answer.
Tricky one and I’m biased before I even begin. Being an older mum I had the amnio etc. - forewarned is for armed! With one of them there was a chance of deafness - no degree of accuracy of course, just statistics ‘x’ chance of % degree of deafness.
We went ahead - result perfect hearing , perfect child. We have four altogether [lets no get into the ‘too many’ for the moment. Two of them are typically developing girls, two are autistic boys.
If I [we] had known - what would we have done? Hindsight, not a very good predictor. Disabled? Most people would say so. Cure autism /find the cause, great. What to do with the fetus / baby. You tell me dearie.
They’re here, we love them, they’re ‘weird’ and wired differently, it’s just the new normal for us - way to go neuro-diversity.
Cheers
http://whitterer-autism.blogspot.com
I stumbled across the perfect answer to parental consent to abortion for minors laws, which is–if it’s all about parents’ rights, then you must, to be consistent, equally support laws requiring parental consent to *continued pregnancy* for minors as well–or obviously, it isn’t about parents’ rights, it’s about making abortion specifically as difficult as possible.
No dice, babe. Continued pregnancy does not require medical intervention. The actual “right” is the right to consent to your child’s surgical procedures, not the “right of parents to determine whether or not their kids have babies.” That is like saying that a parent must consent to having a flat-chested child if they refuse to take her in for a boob job.
Just a small clarification. Scarlet, I wasn’t suggesting that any woman has to “justify” an abortion to anyone. Not at all. I was just decrying the fact that many people with disabilities are quite able to function, but are nevertheless seen as either burdensome or scary when they shouldn’t be. That’s all. (And my comment and experience are related to physical disabilites, not mental disabilities.)
So, the point of the comments (I guess badly stated) is that those who WANT children, might, because of real ignorance about the true impacts of various kinds of disability, choose to abort even a pregnancy that might result in a really great, delightful, rewarding, and relatively easy-to-raise child. In short, I wasn’t attacking Pam’s point or the key point of this thread (i.e., Feminist for Life are idiots who exploit people with disabilities), but rather the background noise that rings with views about disabilities perhaps grounded more in fear that reality.
Nothing says a child with a disability should be carried to term, any more than any other child. I merely want to inject into this thread the spark of an idea that living with people with certain disabilities can be a surprise and a delight.
“Continued pregnancy does not require medical intervention”
Are you f-ing kidding? Ever heard of pre-natal care? Wonder why most people have babies *in hospitals*? Know the medical risks of childbirth?
Jeesh.
Chet, Stephen Hawking drools, doesn’t communicate easily and might wear diapers. Is he human? Happy to be alive? I’d wager Mr. Hawkings parents, wife, kids, and grandkids probably think he’s a pretty cool guy, saliva or no.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/text/disable/disable.html
Stick to women’s right to choose — that’s solid ground. Ditch the unnecessary palliating salve of convincing yourself that people who drool on themselves are not human and would rather be dead. It simplifies matters but it’s not true.
If you don’t want to raise a child with a disability (or any other child) for your own reasons, fine. But the comments justifying the act on the child’s behalf are creeping me out. Tell it to Stevie Wonder, Stephen Hawking, Helen Keller, Franklin Roosevelt, Christopher Reeve, and Michael J. Fox.
(Terri Shiavo wasn’t a person with a “disability.” She was woman a persitant vegetative state with liquid brain matter, and consequently the ADA didn’t mean much to her.)
Sure, but Stephen Hawking obviously has a brain and contributes quite a bit to society. All those people you listed? Not retarded. Notice how Chet was talking about mental retardation and specifically differentiated between that and physical disability.
Oenophile: Continued pregnancy does not require medical intervention.
But certain pregnancy procedures do–episiotomy, c-section, amnio/CVS, sonogram, etc. And curiously I don’t hear any anti-choicers–you know, the ones who are constantly agitating for parental consent to abortion with “It’s so not about preventing teenagers from aborting! It’s about the parental right to know about your child’s healthcare!” bullshit rhetoric–lobbying for legislation to force little Sally to get her parents consent before she can get an episiotomy. A c-section is far far riskier than a first trimester abortion, yet minors who choose to give birth can get all the c-sections they want with nary a word to their folks. Why is that?
When it comes to selective abortion of fetuses (feti?) with chromosomal or other physical abnormalities there will never be a consensus on when it is acceptable and when it isn’t, which is why judging others becomes so problematic. While some parents and siblings will rise to the challenge a disabled child presents and become better for it, I would say an equal number will not, as anonymous and others have pointed out. Ultimately, we have to trust that a woman will make the decision based on a realistic assessment of her capabilities.
When I was pregnant, tests showed that my son might have Down’s Syndrome. While I had a Level II ultrasound to look for markers (and the ultrasound suggested a heart abnormality, which either disappeared or was never there), ultrasound only picks up markers about 50% of the time. So I decided to have an amnio so that we could make the best decision for our family. In the two weeks before the ultrasound and the few days after the amnio we did tons of research on Down’s Syndrome and realized that the level of severity is extremely variable and impossible to predict (other than certain physical disabilities) and that services, while existent, are not as easy to access. On top of that, with no health insurance and only my husband’s variable income as a self-employed consultant, the financial strain would have impoverished us.
Hurtful were comments made by people who had no knowledge of our situation when they compared this to eugenics, which is a popular meme even among supposedly liberal folk. We were lucky that we never had to make the decision to abort, but it was on the table. Unless you have been in that position (and it is devastating to think that your child might not be healthy, so yes, maybe that makes me a bigot to some) you are really in no position to judge. Even those who have disabled relatives are not really in a position to judge because often they did not have a choice because the technology was not there to begin with. You cannot say with any reliability what you would have done at that time, even if you are one of those people for whom having a relative with a disability is considered a blessing. I don’t imagine that many women go into that decision igonorant of what they’re facing.
Which brings up another issue- at what point does this become a discussion about class and even race? Despite having no insurance, we were able to cash pay for all the necessary prenatals and tests to be able to have the option of selective abortion. Since many poor women, among them women of race are over-represented, do not have access to prenatal care that would mean that the poor are being disproportionately saddled with the burden of having, raising, and caring for the disabled. Are we comfortable with creating an underclass of disabled dependents? What are the ramifications of this and where does the pro-choice movement come in on this?
And just to clarify- I do not subscribe to the belief that the severely disabled are a waste of oxygen or are abusing their families. People with disabilities can and do enrich our world. I just cannot force women to bear unwanted children for any reason.
(climbing down off my soapbox)
I guess I see a major, if perhaps illusory, distinction between disabilities that affect “the meat� and disabilities that affect “the mind.�.
I guess you are talking yourself in circles. If the issue is “burden”, then you can’t argue for defects that affect the brain vs. those that don’t. A mildly affected person with Downs Syndrome is probably far less of a burden than a person with a brilliant mind who requires 24/7 physical care just to survive. As Lupe says, it may make you feel better to dismiss people less brain-enable than you as Not Human, but it’s useless for any kind of social policy.
i assume that all you folks who want there to be more disabled ppl in the world are prepared to pony up some time/money/a room in your house to help care for the disabled ppl?
I assume that you must be a complete fucking assberet if you assume that “us folks” are not ourselves disabled, have cared for or are currently caring for disabled people.
Oh, and Scarlet? Autism is not “mental illness”.
Chet, Terri Shaivo had a liquified cerebral cortex. She was brain dead, essentially. That’s not even remotely the same thing as having a mental disability. It’s good of you to not want to euthanize, but how are you going to ensure that the care disabled persons need doesn’t burden their family apart from generally strenghtening the social support system, talk to them really sternly and say hey you, stop it, snap out of it, don’t be so damn selfish this is all your fault, the more care you need the less you’re going to get? Bush might want to create a national policy around that form of malign neglect, but reality is that sometimes life is really unfair, and bad things happen and it’s nobody’s fault and you have to cope.
“No dice, babe. Continued pregnancy does not require medical intervention. The actual “rightâ€? is the right to consent to your child’s surgical procedures”
You’re so smart. Let’s just take the million to one shot where the pregnancy does require medical intervention. Okay, it could never happen, let’s pretend we saw it on an episode of World’s Most Amazing Medical Mysteries. A pregnant minor is legally empowered to make her own medical decisions without consulting her parents. Medical, surgical, hospital. Yes, a non pregnant 13 year old needs her parents’ permission to take an aspirin, but a pregnant minor doesn’t need her parents’ permission to get a c-section. Just to get an abortion, which is on balance, safer. So to review, with regards to pregnancy no “right to consent to your child’s surgical procedures” exists. It’s not absolute in other areas, either, courts have placed limits on parents’ ability to restrict their children’s medical treatment based on the parents’ religious convictions.
history_mom says: “Since many poor women, among them women of race are over-represented, do not have access to prenatal care that would mean that the poor are being disproportionately saddled with the burden of having, raising, and caring for the disabled. Are we comfortable with creating an underclass of disabled dependents? What are the ramifications of this and where does the pro-choice movement come in on this?”
this is exactly my point! i may be an assbert for not wanting the disabled to have to be in crappy care facilities or end up severely impoverished. and for any disabled person that’s caring for themselves or is receiving great care from family/friends/care facilities I THINK THAT’S FANTASTIC!! but the ugly truth that i see and hear about (b/c my family doesn’t have money and the students in the public school system where my best friend teaches a ’special needs’ class that includes about 12 severely autistic and violent children) is that the current support system for the disabled SUCKS BIG DONKEY DONG. i wish i had enough money to be able to afford to pay more taxes to support better care or didn’t work 12 hour days 6 days/week so i could do some volunteer work myself. but the fact is that i’m barely making it myself. i love my cousin who’s severely mentally retarded and has to have a stint in her head replaced every few years. but her parents don’t have the money to pay for it. they have to get money from the government to pay for it. so that means that you are paying for it, i am paying for it, and everyone else is paying for it.
Scarlett wrote: Autistic people are not mentally retarded, they are mentally ill.
Jesus. No, autism is a neurological disorder, and many people with autism also have immune disease, seizures, gastrointestinal disorders and a decreased life expectancy.
I have two children with autism, though both were born apparently neurologically-typical but with a genetic propensity to develop the disorder if they met up with one of the various environmental “triggers”. Both did. We made the decision to have a fourth child with the understanding that we were selecting for gender, as males are four times more likely to have autism than girls (actually, it’s even higher, as there are genetically detectable conditions in females where autism is a factor.) We tried to conceive a girl, and did. But we were prepared to consider options if that wasn’t the case.
I love my autistic children, but I don’t believe their autism makes them, or us, “better” for it. If I could cure them in a heartbeat, I would. It wreaks havoc on all our lives, though we try and do the best we can. Even our children’s disabilities put our family at risk with social services and law enforcement. Our younger son has “elopism” issues (he lives to run, and keep on running) and while we can prevent this from happening 99% of the time, that 1% fucks us over every time. We just had social workers and police invade our campsite yesterday, as our son eloped a month ago (we found him within an hour, and would have earlier if people who saw a six year old running down the nearly deserted beach alone had stopped him.) But while parents of NT kids get a pass, we PoAs get hassled (”keep a better eye on your kid”) or worse, a report of neglect and/or abuse. (NB, in yesterday’s situation, the social workers ended up closing the case immediately and apologising, but it fucking should have never happened in the first place, if people in power had a clue about elopism in autism.)
The point of all this is that until society, in particular the anti-safety-net conservative base, deals humanely with the disabled, FFL should keep their %(*& traps shut on how we pro-choicers are “devaluing” them by making the right choices for our families and bodies.
The options within the general public seem to be ‘rainman’ or ‘mental illness’ - looks like we still have a lot of work to do! Best wishes
As usual Amanda posts something I have a lot of involvement in right when I leave the Internet for several days…
The picture, folks? I think it will help if you don’t get fancy and see the insects as any particular species or class of insects, but just as “bugs.” OK? Now substitute in your mind for the fancy word “copulation,” which I think we all agree these bugs are doing, a cruder word that starts with an “f.”
Bug-f__k. See?
Women should get to decide if they are having a baby, period. They should have access to all the information they can get (that they want) on the status and prognoses of their pregnancies. And they get to determine whether they intend to make this a human being, or not.
Once they have decided to have the baby, then it becomes not just their but all of society’s obligation to make that new human being’s life as meaninful as possible. Thus, if women choose to have disabled children–either making that choice in full advance knowledge that is what is developing in their womb, or being taken later by surprise as disability generally does, on some time scale or other–society can and should help them bear any unusual burdens.
As the close associate of the Chair of the Area IV Board on Developmental Disabilities (that’s Sonoma, Napa, and Solano counties, California) I heard plenty testimony of families raising kids with severe disabilities. Natasha and I became associates and friends of several such families. And I had the examples of Natasha’s upbringing, and even the milder case of my own, to consider. The way Natasha remembered it, her own diagnosis of Friedreich’s Ataxia at age 10 or so pretty much broke her family. As for me–I didn’t realize, growing up, what a blow it must have been to my father to realize that his eldest son was going to be borderline deaf his entire life. (Oh, yeah, two daughters with the same problem. My dad’s kinda patriarchial…) But there it is. Kids with disabilities represent an objective burden.
At the same time, they are also often people of great value to the community as a whole. In any event–once their mothers have chosen to birth them, they are human beings, and thus entitled to support.
So–pro-life? I’ll believe it when I see these bozos out there lobbying for enhanced disability services, for relieving the families random chance visits with these burdens of their exceptional load, and generally enabling access for disabled people to a full range of life options.
Funny thing though. When I’ve been on the front lines of disability politics, I sometimes hear words and platititudes from these unctious Republican “pro-life” types, but in action, I just about always have seen them wielding a red pen to strike out what parsimonous services the relatively “progressive” State of California had once committed to in fits of decency.
Not that the Democrats are automatic sugar daddies either. In fact, disability politics is full of hard-fought struggles, which often do result in odd coalitions of Republican and Democrat on both sides of the issue–pennypinchers and medical control freaks versus the right of people born with disabilities to live some life better than convicted felons.
But certain pregnancy procedures do–episiotomy, c-section, amnio/CVS, sonogram, etc. And curiously I don’t hear any anti-choicers–you know, the ones who are constantly agitating for parental consent to abortion with “It’s so not about preventing teenagers from aborting! It’s about the parental right to know about your child’s healthcare!� bullshit rhetoric–lobbying for legislation to force little Sally to get her parents consent before she can get an episiotomy. A c-section is far far riskier than a first trimester abortion, yet minors who choose to give birth can get all the c-sections they want with nary a word to their folks. Why is that?
Stating the obvious: because it is NOT about the “right” of a parent to ensure that their child acts in the safest possible manner but rather the right of the parent to approve or have notice of non-emergency medical procedures. A woman who is giving brith needs medical intervention and will receive it under one of the exceptions to the standard consent laws: emergency. (Be aware that hospitals are not permitted to deny medical care to women who are giving birth!) NOTE: this applies for girls and women who are old enough to give medical consent on their own.
Consent is needed for medical procedures, absent emergency. In our society, minors cannot give medical consent, so the parents do it for them. Abortion is a medical procedure and is treated exactly like every other medical procedure. I’m sure that blows your minds, because most “feminists” get their panties in a bunch when they see non-discrimination.
A pregnant minor is legally empowered to make her own medical decisions without consulting her parents. Medical, surgical, hospital. Yes, a non pregnant 13 year old needs her parents’ permission to take an aspirin, but a pregnant minor doesn’t need her parents’ permission to get a c-section. Just to get an abortion, which is on balance, safer. So to review, with regards to pregnancy no “right to consent to your child’s surgical procedures� exists. It’s not absolute in other areas, either, courts have placed limits on parents’ ability to restrict their children’s medical treatment based on the parents’ religious convictions.
Occaisional restrictions hardly equates to renouncing the entire right. To again state the obvious for those too blind to think: courts will ONLY override the parents wishes if the result is life-threatening, and then, not all the time. I do not want to live in a society in which the government dictates the medical care of its citizens. It is not a far cry from what “feminists” propose to having the government require that parents consent to the most aggressive treatments (such as chemo for a terminal cancer patient, when child and family want to enjoy the little time left). The government does, on occaison, go that far, but it is not hard to see that the justification is the same as you propose: that parents, given the choice between two VALID medical options, would choose the “less safe” one.
As someone who has been frighteningly ill before, I can say that medical decisions are often made for reasons that go beyond “medicine,” such as quality of life or convenience or for mental health reasons. To suggest that parents cannot weigh those factors when their child is pregnant, but can in every other circumstance, is ridiculous. This “logic” will lead you down the road to perdition. One can imagine a court ordering a parent to send her brilliant child to private school, because the adequate public school would not be a good situation. Parents are not the slaves of the government, nor of “feminists.”