Christi Nielson said: Again, you exaggerate. I’ve never heard any pro-lifer say anything that would elude to the fact that they think this of a pro-choicer. You’re making us look like we’re reaching for straws.

Feminists For Life said, or at least strongly implied, that pro-choice means believing that certain people (depicted as full-grown adults) had no right to exist.

The dad of a DS boy who has a lot of really insightful things to say about disability rights, the issue of eradication of disabilities, and so on.

Fair enough. But I was responding to Lanoire’s implication that the reason that disability is generally invisible on feminist blogs is because people who claim to care about disability are really just stealth anti-abortion activists. And I really believe that’s both wrong and insulting.

Well, a lot of folks who clamored about Schiavo certainly fit that description. But you’re right. That wouldn’t exactly fit the average disabled person or disabled activist. Thanks for the clarification.

Speaking of clarification, I’m sorry if I made it sound in my previous post as if I didn’t know that the U.S. has indeed more than dabbled in eugenics through our sordid history. I do know, and it’s not something to be proud of. I suspect that at least some of the fury around the issue of a woman choosing to abort a disabled fetus but not a healthy fetus is about the fact that in an ableist society, the market is essentially driving a view that heavily encourages eugenic thought. And I don’t really know what to do about that apart from things I’ve brought up in a thousand other posts. No need in going into them all again.

While I agree, in general, that actions are more important than labels, I don’t think they’re entirely unimportant, either. When the conservative government wants to push more anti-choice legislation on the country, they use the “polls” that show the majority of people in this country are not pro-choice … and fence-sitting politicians may just believe them.

Do what you like. Those folks can do what they like. They will anyway. When somebody wants to shop a more alluring and effective encapsulation of the philosophy you espouse than “pro-choice,” I’ll take a look at it for sure. In the meantime, it’s what we’ve got, and I’ll stick with it. And in a culture where as many people skip out on voting as vote, I tend to lean heavily toward the notion that there are multiple reasons that most citizens sit out even cursory participation in political movements– But I tend to place misgivings about supposed pro-choice fanaticism down near the bottom of the list. Because I really don’t think that there’s any such thing as a pro-choice fanatic. It’s a contradiction in terms. Perhaps there are grown men and women who can’t tell the difference between A) Wanting to leave hard decisions to individual women and not the state B) Wanting to analyze those decisions in context of a larger society (which is what I feel folks like you and Sarahlynn are doing and C) Mandatory, compulsory abortion as a component of state-run/sanctioned eugenics. If so, I really don’t think those folks would be much use to any organized movement for any type of human rights.

That’s my elitist snot moment for today. Carry on. You’ve given me a lot to think about.

Dianne said:

IIRC, the record for IQ in a person with Down syndrome is 110″“higher than the average. DS can cause a wide range of problems and people with DS can lead anything from an essentially normal life (though probably with a mildlly shortened lifespan and somewhat decreased intelligence compared to what they might have had otherwise) to severe physical problems and profound mental retardation leading to death in early childhood.

The IQ range for people with Down syndrome is roughly a one standard deviation shift of the typical IQ bell curve. So it’s as likely that a person with DS will have intelligence in the normal range as it is that a person with DS will be severely developmentally disabled (preferred term for adults, children are considered developmentally delayed, not disabled).

There’s so much misunderstanding about this - so many people in this thread and elsewhere seem to believe that having Down syndrome means that a person will be moderately to severely mentally retarded (actual dianosis).

I believe that it’s hugely important to:
1) Provide support systems for people with disabilities and their families, including reliable access to medical and therapeutic care - which we do have in my red state, despite the Republican governor’s attempts to eliminate the programs and reduce funding, and
2) Educate people about what it really means to have a disability like Down syndrome. It could be that it’s not as bad as (general) you’re thinking it is. Many women are making choices based in ignorance and fear.
3) Expose people to our stories, to our loved ones, in such a way as to eventually convince them that people with disabilities aren’t just drains on society, eyesores to make us uncomfortable, worst case scenarios “living” lives without value. And this is true of people who are far more seriously affected by their disabilities than my daughter is by hers.

Right now I’m focused on my first and second goals; I think number 3 is a long way away from here and now.

Oh, c’mon. If I say “Choice X is morally wrong,” the logical implication is that people who make choice X are doing something morally wrong.

And can’t you make arguments like this around all the other reasons a woman might feel disincentive to carry a pregnancy to term?

Of course. It’s the difference between pointing out that women may feel pressured to abort because they can’t afford a child, and saying that finances are a litmus test as to whether a woman should be allowed to abort.

I apologize. I took it that way but, interestingly, my husband didn’t. He figured your argument meant exactly what you’re saying it meant.

LANOIRE: I also don’t think abortion should be framed, especially by pro-choicers, in any way that doesn’t acknowledge and respect the issues of bodily autonomy and free choice. Which means I can’t respect the framing of this discussion solely from a disability rights viewpoint, because it ignores what in my opinion is the most important aspect of the issue.

The law forbids taking illicit drugs, despite personal choice. The law has, in times past, called people to a draft who were against war. The law forbids selling your own organs, and places regulations on your ability to give them away. The law can cause people to be imprisoned against their wills, either for crimes or for mental illness. The law in most places forbids prostitution, or the purchase of sex. The law can recommend capital punishment. All of these are infringements on autonomy, and all of them are legal.

Abortion is about a woman’s right to privacy, and not her physical autonomy.

Secondly, I believe it is perfectly legitimate to “frame” this discussion in terms of disability rights. Disability rights are no less important than the right to privacy; since abortion and disability do intersect sometimes, they can be discussed together sometimes.

Feminism and disability rights are intricately linked, as far as I’m concerned. Women and people with disabilities are still seen by some as having characteristics inferior to the socially dominant group. I think it’s fair, and entirely proper, to discuss abortion in the context of disability rights, without having to specify the caveat that it’s still a woman’s choice.

I don’t know bean or anyone else on this thread. I don’t know what they do in terms of disabled activism, whether their main focus is the abortion of disabled fetuses or not. What I do know is that, in my experience, so many of these fiery arguments about disability rights start coming out of the woodwork during discussions of abortion. That’s very telling.

That’s exactly right. You don’t know what I do in terms of disability rights. I’ll give you a clue, however: My stance on the morality of selective abortion is part of a larger disability rights agenda.

…”freedom to choose doesn’t mean freedom from criticism.” Unless “criticize” and “blame” are concepts that are light-years apart in your vocabulary, I don’t see where I’ve misinterpreted you.

I’m the one Bean quoted when she said the freedom to choose does not imply freedom from criticism. Would you have preferred I used the phrase “examine critically”? Or are the social pressures leading to a choice about abortion beyond critical examination?

You can criticize a choice without blaming the individual for it. I don’t blame women who choose to abort because of fetal anomalies, but I do criticize that particular choice in a broader sense. I also criticize people who laud that choice as proper.

Telling a woman her choice to abort was right is as odious to me as telling her the decision was wrong is to you.

I have questioned why focusing on pregnant women is a good choice for disability rights activists.

And I would question why a woman’s right to privacy should take primacy over disability rights. Disability activists should be permitted to deal with any subject discussed in the public sphere without fearing they’ll be criticized for taking attention from more important things ““ which, I think, is exactly what this argument is boiling down to.

To be fair, Sally, I don’t think that’s just a problem with feminism. I’m sure that there were plenty of Right Wing Christian “sunshine activists” for the disabled who came and went with Terry Schiavo, for instance.

Right. Conservatives almost always pursue policy agendas which are terrrible for disabled people. But it’s hardly surprising that conservatives, who are all about preserving the status quo and upholding current power and status hierarchies, want to preserve a status quo that isn’t good for disabled people. Feminists are supposed to be about challenging those hierarchies. That’s why I’m a feminist, not a conservative. I generally expect better of feminists than of conservatives.

To be fair as well, I don’t see that any blog has the obligation to raise every issue from every perspective.

Fair enough. But I was responding to Lanoire’s implication that the reason that disability is generally invisible on feminist blogs is because people who claim to care about disability are really just stealth anti-abortion activists. And I really believe that’s both wrong and insulting.

For the record, my daughter is a healthy little girl with Down syndrome and (apparently) normal intelligence.

IIRC, the record for IQ in a person with Down syndrome is 110–higher than the average. DS can cause a wide range of problems and people with DS can lead anything from an essentially normal life (though probably with a mildlly shortened lifespan and somewhat decreased intelligence compared to what they might have had otherwise) to severe physical problems and profound mental retardation leading to death in early childhood. That’s one reason why it is important to leave the decision of what to do in the case of a prenatal diagnosis of DS to the parents, particularly the mother, rather than the state. There’s no way of saying in advance how bad the damage from the extra chromosome will be and no one else has the right to decide whether to take the risk or not.

It’s difficult not to respond to several of the other comments people have made here as to personal attacks, like Silverstar’s “burdening the tribe” bit. Look - having kids is risky business. There’s no guarentee that a child born with Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) will be anywhere close to being “profoundly developmentally disabled” just as there’s no guarentee that a child born without Trisomy 21 will be profoundly gifted. Or will stay that way. Not all disabilities can be detected prenatally. Not all disabilities exist from the time a child is born. And, for heaven’s sake, not all disabilities are a burden on society.

pdf23ds , my daughter is neither a “net negative” nor an anecdote.

It’s worth pointing out, yet again, that this discussion began by talking about an apparently wanted pregnancy that was aborted after it became clear that the fetus had Trisomy 21. This is a very different scenario than one in which a pregnancy started or became a not-wanted pregnancy for any reason other than a perception that the child might have a disability.

For the record, my daughter is a healthy little girl with Down syndrome and (apparently) normal intelligence.

What I do know is that, in my experience, so many of these fiery arguments about disability rights start coming out of the woodwork during discussions of abortion. That’s very telling.

I think it’s telling, too, but probably for different reasons than you do. I don’t think most people who produce or read feminist blogs care very much about disability issues. I don’t think they consider them real feminist issues. I don’t think they feel any responsibility to do anything about disability issues, other than pay them the most cursory lip-service. Therefore, the only time it’s possible to get a heated debate, or even a non-heated discussion, started about disability on a feminist blog is when it intersects with an issue that most feminists care about, such as abortion.

“Criticizing abortion for certain reasons is not the same as criticizing women who choose to have those abortions. Just like criticizing the system that causes more women than men to take time off of from their careers to raise children is criticizing individual women who make that choice. Just like criticizing the institution of marriage is criticizing people who choose to get married. Just like criticizing the military industrial complex is not the same as criticizing the individuals who serve this country.”

There is a distinction betweeen the first example in this string and the parallels: criticizing “abortions” is not parallel to criticizing “the system,” an “institution,” or a “complex”, which are clearly distinct from the individuals operating according to or crushed by or caught up in any of these three; abortions, unlike systems, complexes and instiutions, are individual acts inextricably linked to the women who choose to have them, which is why “criticizing abortions for certain reasons” appears to me to be no different from “criticizing women who choose to have abortions for certain reasons.”

I know that I probably disagree with many women about the morality of their choices regarding abortion, marriage, and what have you. I might even criticize them from time to time, but as I said above, this particular juxtaposition of disability and abortion rights strikes me as grossly unfair, whether intended or not, by its implication that pregnant women are or should be the linchpin of altruism and morality in a society that barely cares about the sick and disabled.

You seem to have a really funny idea of what discussion means…

I would have thought it meant: “to talk about or discuss an idea.” Which is pretty much what we’re doing here.

You seem to think it means: “agree with everything that someone you generally respect says.”

I don’t understand even a little bit why someone like bean, with feminism cred out the yin yang, gets the same reaction.

If you have an idea that’s discussed in the Inner Sanctum, even if the goyim don’t get a vote, that’s still an idea. But an idea that can be discussed nowhere isn’t an idea, it’s a superstition or a fetish.