Paul,
Using a living functioning human being as an example of why women shouldn't
have a right to choose abortion, makes the discussion impossible. I've heard
this argument before, in many guises. I remember being at a meeting way back
when Nixon was President, and a young black man saying to me, "I was the
youngest of seven children. If abortion had been legal twenty five years
ago, I wouldn't be here today, talking to you". I also remember an adoptive
couple, clients of mine, who were devout Christians and were strongly
opposed to abortion. The husband was telling me that his wife had become
pregnant, and they were so happy because they thought she was infertile. And
he said, "I want to tell you that when it's time for her to give birth, if
the doctor tells me that I have to choose whose life to save, her's or the
baby's, I'll choose the baby because a new life is so important". And the
wife then told me that she wholeheartedly agreed with her husband. Now there
was an unselfish woman!
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Wick
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 1:35 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: If abortion based on gender is wrong so is
abortion based on disability
Miriam,
I think you're thinking is revealed somewhat by your previous post showing
your stereotypical knowledge of other disabilities. How is your position any
different than eugenics? For example, my wife has spina bifida (something
you can detect in utero these days) if hypothetically her parents of been
like I just can't deal I wouldn't have a wife today. How is being so
incredibly selfish in any way progressive?
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 19, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
limit a woman's right to abortion is, to my mind, dishonest.
My question was, had he become disabled after birth. I asked that
because I think we need to make a distinction between disability
rights and the right of women to make choices about abortion. Each of
us has our own value system and each of us makes decisions on the
basis of our values. The article that Paul posted, I believe, made a
false equivalency between people choosing abortion because of wanting
a child of a particular sex, and people choosing an abortion because
they know that the foetus will develop into a severely disabled baby.
I don't think that these are equivalent situations. However, I do
think that each of us has a right to determine whether or not to have
an abortion, regardless of our reasons. I don't think that any
outsider, be it a government official or a religious leader, or a
family member, or an observer, has a right to make judgments about a
woman's choice. To use the cover of disability rights as an excuse to
analysis
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz ;
Comcast
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 12:43 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: If abortion based on gender is wrong so
is abortion based on disability
No but he had his children and fatherred them after he became disabled.
And, yes it was his sperm.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 11:24 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: If abortion based on gender is wrong so
is abortion based on disability
Was he born with the disability?
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of joe harcz ;
Comcast
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 10:44 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: If abortion based on gender is wrong
so is abortion based on disability
I have a very dear personal friend who is a person with quadraplegia
and he has two children.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 9:25 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: If abortion based on gender is wrong
so is abortion based on disability
Really? Like if one is paralyzed from the neck down? Or what about
the family I knew who, among their six children, had two daughters
who were born with almost no mental capacity? They were completely
unable to care for themselves or to talk or to move or to play with
toys, and they were barely aware of their surroundings. They
required unending total physical care which their mother provided
until each of them died at about 20 years of age.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Wick
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:52 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: If abortion based on gender is wrong
so is abortion based on disability
Miriam,
Ableism is real, people are only as held back from achieving
whatever their potential might be from the attitudes and barriers of
able-bodied society.
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
real and some are very severe.On Apr 18, 2016, at 7:44 PM, Miriam Vieniwrote:
<miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
It's true that sex and disability are seen within a cultural context.
However, that doesn't mean that their equivalent in terms of how
they impact an individual's functioning. Yes, it may be easier or
pleasanter to be male in a particular society. However, being
female in that society is purely a social disadvantage. But
dissabilities are
baby boys.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul ;
Wick
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 8:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] If abortion based on gender is wrong so
is abortion based on disability
New research
<http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2016/04/11/cmaj.151074>
out this week suggests sex selective abortions
<http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/abortions-indian-boy-girl-bi
rth -ratio -1.3530278> are taking place in Canada.
The study, published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal,
looked at more than six million births in Canada and suggests that
sex selection, through abortion, is making for an usually high
proportion of
* For analysis of the study itself, read Dr. Brian Goldman's
else?here.
<http://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/blog/fetal-sex-selection-apparen
tly
-happe
ns-in-canada-1.3530171>
The research has prompted plenty of reaction from columnists
<http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-how-can-dog
mat
ic-pro
-choicers-reconcile-their-defence-of-womans-right-to-choose-but-not
-of
-a-gir
ls-right-to-live> , academics
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/sex-selective-abortions-str
ive -for-c ultural-understanding-over-outrage/article29641641/> ,
activists, women's rights advocates
<http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/the-current-for-april-13-2016-1
.35
33281/
indo-canadian-couples-choosing-sons-over-daughters-study-1.3533292>
, and politicians
<http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/04/12/health-minister-
dee
ply-di
sturbed-by-report-son-preference-linked-to-sex-selective-abortions.
html>
.
But while Canadians seem to be disturbed by abortion based on
gender, Gregor Wolbring wonders why abortions based on ability
don't trigger a similar reaction.
Wolbring, an ableism and disability studies scholar at the
University of Calgary's Cummings School of Medicine, says the logic
is inconsistent and points out that fetuses with conditions like
cleft palate or Down's Syndrome are aborted more often than not.
"We're selecting, through ultrasound, whether you have arms and
legs - termination rate is roughly around 90-95%. Cleft palate has
a high termination rate. Down's Syndrome, we all know has a
termination rate of 90%. So if we talk about gender equity, the
question then is do we have two-tiered system based on social
groups where one is more important than the other, " he says.
The full interview is available in the audio player above. The
following portions have been edited for clarity and length.
Why do people find it repugnant to terminate a pregnancy based on
gender, but acceptable to terminate a pregnancy based on something
gender.
Culture. Every culture has different hierarchies about which social
groups they accept. We could say in North America, or Canada at
least, is fairly acceptive of being gay. Others still treat it like
a disease. Others again, still search for the gay gene, which then
of course if seen in a disease narrative you would try to eliminate
that also. So it's a cultural thing. In some cultures, me having a
body difference might be less disadvantaged than having a certain
diseased.It's all about...what the system is willing to accommodate and whatisn't.
it
disability field.
Over and above culture, is there an equivalency to be made between
terminating a pregnancy because of gender and terminating a
pregnancy because of genetic illness?
Sure. Just look at the arguments used about why gender selection is
bad. One is about sex discrimination, well if sex discrimination is
bad, then is ability discrimination not bad? Another one is about
sex stereotyping, if sex stereotyping bad, is ability stereotyping
not just as bad? So any arguments that could be used to say sex
selection is bad could be used for any selection, period.
What about the argument that the parents are doing [ability based
abortions] to prevent suffering?
You could say then in India in certain areas, where life sucks for
being a girl, you're better off. Suffering is a very subjective
term, it's an emotive term to get acceptance, but that also takes
people away from why are people really suffering? That's a long
debate within the
Do I suffer because I have no legs, or do I suffer because you have
legs and build everything accordingly. If you go by logic, then
even if they are suffering, then is equality or equity out because
of an argument like suffering. The only way to distinguish between
ability selection and sex selection is that we label one as
disease, and the other isn't. The problem with that is that is that
disease is a moving target. It's short sighted, so if I start
enhancing people then I can label the ones who aren't enhanced as
country?really muddies the water.
Is it possible to be against this kind of prenatal testing and
still be pro-choice?
Sure. I'm a strong believer in you do it for everything or you do
it for nothing and I come from Germany, and there the feminist
movement was very much against genetic [testing] but that doesn't
mean they were against abortion. The pro/con argument about
abortion is a totally different debate than the argument around
selective use. In North America, for whatever reason it's just
mingled together and that
What do these studies and the acceptance of prenatal genetic
screening tell us about the broader attitudes to disability in this
count.
Given we accept the distinction, then it's hierarchy. Given we
don't have the same outcry, we're still in a position where abilities
If you don't have the ability, then you're disadvantaged and you
have to fight for things. But if you had a society where everyone
was supported, then you wouldn't even go for the test. But instead,
there are studies that show because women have the "choice" now,
the blame factor is increasing - because people feel that they had
their choice and they didn't [abort] and then the next step would
be 'well you had your choice, so now you pay for it'.
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/abortions-for-some-but-not-all-left-
foo
ted-br
aking-and-regret-over-raising-a-secular-child-1.3536556/if-abortion
-ba
sed-on
-gender-is-wrong-so-is-abortion-based-on-disability-u-of-c-prof-1.3
536
619
Sent from my iPhone
