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:
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 real and some are very severe.
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 baby boys.
* 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-dogmatic-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-13-2016-1.3533281/
indo-canadian-couples-choosing-sons-over-daughters-study-1.3533292> , and
politicians
<http://www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/04/12/health-minister-deeply-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 isn't.
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 disability field.
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
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 really muddies the water.
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-footed-br
aking-and-regret-over-raising-a-secular-child-1.3536556/if-abortion-based-on
-gender-is-wrong-so-is-abortion-based-on-disability-u-of-c-prof-1.3536619
Sent from my iPhone
