I’ve read your comments and I just cannot fathom how/why it is acceptable to call bringing another human being into this world a mistake because that human being will have a disability (when compared to most other human beings).

I could see the argument if this brand new human being were to suffer physically or emotionally in an extreme way and would then live a life of pain, but this is not the case here. And even then, of course, that is up to the parents to decide.

Your post leaves me speechless for its content and its tone.

To Kristen, Adrienne,and Jonah, all the best

0

That said, I’m a lot less informed than I probably should be. (Especially as what little I do know points to my having to be responsible for my sister in 25 years or so.) But I’m NOT having biological kids.

0

Thanks for your time ,Rhonda

0

Sorry, but you did not understand correctly. Or at least I am not one of the “many people” whom this addresses.

For the dozenth time, I would like to make perfectly clear that I do, do, do absolutely support full reproductive choice. (Indeed, that is why I began by saying “I do, of course, support parents’ decisions to not proceed with a pregnancy that is more complicated than they feel able to handle”! Not sure how much clearer a blanket statement I could make.) In any of my criticisms and questions, I was speaking solely and specifically toward those who came here in order to chastise parents who choose to proceed with the pregnancy of a disabled child. It is no business at all of mine why any given person may choose to get an abortion, and that’s not a state of affairs I wish to change. But when someone is making *general arguments* that women *should not* give birth to a certain class of children because they’re less valuable than another class of children — well, that argument deserves a strong response, I think.

0

I also don’t think it’s horrible or insensitive that this discussion is occurring. There have been lots of statements on this thread about the availability of abortion, of course I respect what the author and her wife decided to do, but she herself also talked, at length, about reproductive choice.

If I understand the original point correctly, it seems that many people feel that the choice not to proceed with a challenged pregnancy based on what you think the person will be like, growing up, is the wrong choice. That – as I think you said – it’s “eugenics” to abort just because of a person’s own (probably erroneous) belief that the disabled child isn’t as “worthwhile” as other children.

I am wondering, though, how does that jibe with being pro-choice in general? I mean, if you support a woman’s right to choose abortion, then do you start getting involved in why or how she makes that decision? Suppose someone decides they’re not ready for a baby for entirely frivolous reasons? Like, she would like to have fun first, or it wouldn’t be good for her abs? I thought being pro-choice meant, you don’t start judging why a woman makes a particular reproductive decision, you respect her autonomy over her own body, and you don’t start asking whether she’s doing it for the “right” reasons?

In other words… if someone says, well, I cannot have a baby now, I’m not ready, or I’m not financially or professionally secure, presumably a pro-choice person would respect that choice. But if someone says, I am not ready to raise a challenged child, I think it would be too hard, I’m not sure I really would feel the same about the child and also, by the way, I don’t think it’s a socially responsible thing to do, that rationale is wrong and so therefore – what? If that is the reason the woman would choose to terminate, she should not be allowed to? How is that a worse reason to terminate than being concerned for your abs?

I can understand where people are very concerned with what is happening for kids who are born disabled today. With so, so many couples making the decision not to proceed under those circumstances, it seems clear that we are moving to a society where there won’t be the resources for disabled kids, just because there will be so many fewer of them. And, it might be that an increasing number of parents will feel a lot of pressure not to continue with a challenged pregnancy, even if they wanted and felt able to. I guess what I don’t know is, given that the genie is well out of the bottle at this point, what could reasonably, and consistently with permitting full reproductive choice, be done about that. Any ideas?

1

What I was mainly responding to is this notion: “Wouldn’t have a non disable child brought just as much love and happiness in the hearts of the parents, while leaving them both able to contribute to society’s evolution – and by that to contribute to the well-being of the whole community?” — as though kids are fungible and any non-disabled child is automatically going to do more good in the worth than a disabled child. And I am suggesting that if people are going to make this argument they ought to take some time to consider what they really mean when they perform this kind of arithmetic and talk about “society’s evolution.” Are they talking about healthcare costs? It was not framed this way. But even so — if you want to talk social policy, okay, go ahead, lay out your proposals. I would suggest, however, that appending these thoughts to an article about two parents’ very difficult, intensely considered decision to bear their child may not be the most appropriate place to do this, especially when the tenor of the discussion has already been set by somebody *explaining* to them how very selfish they have been.

To anyone, I recommend this very long but very captivating article by disability rights activist Harriet McBryde Johnson, which touches on some of these themes from a very personal perspective: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/16/magazine/unspeakable-conversations.html

0

I do not think, though, that it is always and everywhere “eugenics” to have questions about going forward with a pregnancy where there is a substantial chance that the child will be profoundly disabled. Yes, of course it’s always true that we don’t know what will happen with any of our children. Any way you look at that, it is a sobering and humbling process.

There are times that people will, in fact, discuss the net benefits and costs to society of certain medical decisions. For one example, people talk sometimes about whether such a large percentage of our national health care dollars should be spent on extending the last few months and weeks of life, especially in cases where a person is extremely elderly, or incurable. Heaven knows that I don’t have the answers, but sometimes there do need to be discussions about how to allocate limited resources. And, I think it’s important to be able to talk about things like this without the feeling that even bringing it up, makes you a murderer or otherwise unworthy to participate.

0

And that still is something that is better addressed by education than legal restrictions. All the latter is going to result in is unwanted children who are treated poorly or even abused in many cases, because their parents are prevented from aborting them but still don’t understand how Down Syndrome works.

And there will still be some parents, even with education about it, who won’t want a kid with Down Syndrome. So that will still need to address the issues with the adoption system, to make giving a kid up for adoption a more appealing option. We’ll need to educate not only the people thinking of having kids, but the public at large – and making foster care better for children with disabilities.

1