Absolutely no one, no man, no woman, and especially no government or
church should be allowed to tell a woman what she can or cannot do
with her body. Nor with anything put there by some man.
It is her body. It is her life that is impacted.
Why is it that men, and some women become so fanatical over women
deciding what to do about their pregnancy.
Just because our institutions are able to sentence young men...and
now, young women to death defending the possessions of Corporations,
in other Lands, does not give them the right to tell a woman what she
can do with a fetus, often put there without her approval.
Just because too many of us allow government to torture, and to
oppress the working class, does not give them the right to deny
abortion to women.
Have we asked ourselves just why it is that a Ruling Class that is
driven by Profit over People, makes such a big issue over the abortion
of a fetus? When those same corporate robbers care nothing about the
lives or the suffering that are caused by their greedy grabbing at
others possessions?
A large percentage of pregnancies come about by accident. Countless
babies are born to single mothers, and raised at poverty level. It
takes a very brave woman to go against the pressures of society and
abort a fetus. If we do not want abortions to occur, then by God, we
had better find a way to prevent unwanted sex. Or perhaps we could
only permit sex for the sole purpose of producing babies. Since men
seem to find it necessary to force their affections on women, then
either we must permit women to determine what to do about the unwanted
pregnancy, or we need to castrate every man who forces himself off
upon those not wanting his advances. Of course we would then have
another class to contend with. Eunuchs would very likely become the
dominant sub-group.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/19/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
On Apr 18, 2016, at 7:44 PM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
real and some are very severe.
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-birth
-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
isn't.
* For analysis of the study itself, read Dr. Brian Goldman's analysis
here.
<http://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/blog/fetal-sex-selection-apparently
-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-dogmat
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-strive
-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 else?
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 gender.
It's all about...what the system is willing to accommodate and what 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 havereally muddies the water.
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 diseased.
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 country?
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 count.
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-1.3536
619
Sent from my iPhone
