Comments on: Palin and Disability Advocacy

By: Salome

Salome — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:23:36 +0000

@Kathleen: I think you misread my comments. I was not trying to say that aborting a fetus based on its disability is necessarily a “good” thing, nor is it a good argument in favor of abortion rights. (Personally, I think there are a lot better arguments one could make in favor of a woman’s right to choose – though that’s not the specific issue we’re discussing here).

My point was more that you can’t approach this issue in a vacuum. It’s easy to dismiss anybody who aborts a child on the basis that it has DS as a monster, but that’s ignoring all the other factors that could be in play. Like income level – not every family can afford the extra medical bills and accommodations that come with having a child with a disability. Or the fact that DS often comes alongside other, more problematic genetic abnormalities – some of which may make survival outside the womb unlikely.

And as commenters above said, if you’re not on board with the idea that women don’t need a “good reason” to abort their fetus, you can’t really call yourself “100% pro-choice.”

By: Brianna

Brianna — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 02:33:25 +0000

I am uncertain how much of the decision to terminate is based on the environment and how much is based on the disability itself. Despite our ability to detect Down’s, we still can’t tell how severe it will be– it’s still a gamble to go ahead. On the one hand, your child may be as developmentally advanced, talented, and successful as Chris Burke. On the other, they may have a very severe form that requires them to live with family or be institutionalized. While increased public acceptance will make the lives of individuals with milder forms so much better that one could hardly think it a reason to abort, for the more severe cases…

As wonderful and sweet as he is, the brother of a friend of mine has very severe Downs. He also had the best possible start to life– a loving and supportive family with the wealth to give him the best start, a fabulous school designed for the severely mentally disabled, a wide and caring circle of friends both with similar disabilities and without, and a supportive town that has made sure he has employment he enjoys and finds fulfilling with individuals who can communicate in sign language (he is nonverbal). I cannot imagine a better scenario for a child with a disability such as his. And yet, he cannot live alone– despite his fabulous therapy and education, and progress beyond what was ever expected, he does not have the judgment to manage his own living space without putting himself in danger. He also cannot drive or use public transportation on his own; he requires an aide at all times, even when interacting with people who are fluent in sign language, because he often needs reminders of basic things. He also struggles because his emotional level is not the same as his intellectual level, and he wants relationships yet cannot understand them enough to have a loving, egalitarian relationship. He is of course a wonderful sweet man and makes his family very happy, but I know most people will look at him– who has all the best in life– and not want to have children who have to go through that. The emotional strain of watching what their son went through has been very hard on his parents, despite their comparatively easy time raising him (that is, while he had challenges, they had an enormous amount of help).

It is a tricky balance, and of course disability services are vital regardless of their overall effect. But I doubt that they will solve the problem or reduce the number of selective abortions, at least for Downs.

By: RD

RD — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:28:54 +0000

PS – I do see how selective termination is more obviously eugenics, but wonder where the line between eugenics, and minimizing disability/maximizing health/ability is. I do apologize for the tangent, as well! Just trying to learn more and understand…

By: RD

RD — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:06:05 +0000

Re: “*any* person can become disabled. *any* child might have unforeseen difficulties” and abortion of fetuses with DS as “the tiny, talismanic ways we can avoid difficulty”) – I agree that prenatal screening may give a false sense of security because children can be born with any multitude of difficulties that cannot be detected via prenatal screening, and any able-bodied person can suddenly become disabled. However, prenatal screening is just one of many ways that people attempt to promote health and avoid disability – before pregnancy women are advised to take folic acid to reduce the risk of neural tube defects (e.g. spina bifida); during pregnancy many avoid alcohol, caffeine, un-pasturized cheese, etc, and some opt for (in some cases its strongly recommended/forced – my experience was that is was entirely my choice to test or not) prenatal screening to detect DS, neural tube defects and trisomy 18. After birth, we’re advised to breastfeed to reduce risks of a multitude of health issues, we are required to use car-seats, etc. From childhood to adulthood we wear seatbelts and helmets to reduce the risk of head and spinal cord injuries… In theory, all of these things are supposed to promote health and reduce “difficulties”. Are all of these things talismanic and do they all work against disability rights advocacy? Are all of these things eugenics? Are these things “bad”?

By: lauredhel

lauredhel — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:13:49 +0000

Bagelsan: It’s also eugenics when the medical system systematically encourages and/or enforces abortion for fetuses destined to have disabilities, and sterilisation, birth control, and abortion for disabled people.

When your doctor routinely orders prenatal testing without offering and discussing your wishes, and reaches for the abortion scheduling form while giving you the results? Eugenics. Even though it has little or nothing to do with the government.

By: K

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 01:40:34 +0000

I’ve got a sister with Down’s. She’s 25. I love her dearly, but also know that I don’t have the strength to have a child with Down’s. Advances in medical care mean that my sister will have a nearly-normal lifespan. However she will never be able to be an independent adult. She will always need supervision and intensive care from a responsible adult. The harsh reality is that it is emotionally, physically and financially very difficult to manage day-to-day care. This is difficult for a “normal” child, but even more so for one whose need for care doesn’t end when she turns 18. We’re happy that each of us siblings is willing and able to contribute to her care. But not every family has such a safety net.

Quite frankly I’m glad the amniocentesis is available for me so that I can make the choice. I know that I could not handle a Down’s child. And I’m glad the 10% of families who choose not to abort have the fortitude to raise “God’s Special Children.” They are stronger people than I am.

By: Bagelsan

Bagelsan — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:46:58 +0000

Also, I trust Palin to “advocate” for PWD/their families about as much as she has managed to “advocate” for women. So yeah.

By: Bagelsan

Bagelsan — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 00:45:44 +0000

I would argue that aborting fetuses based on disability is only eugenics to the extent that the government encourages it. A woman deciding that there is no way she can take care of herself and a baby with a disability and therefore getting an abortion? Not eugenics. Our government deciding to crap all over PWD and make it crazy-difficult for them to get along in society, or programs encouraging fetuses to be aborted? Much more eugenics-like.

By: Ursula L

Ursula L — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:30:41 +0000

Speaking as someone who spent over a decade working in various group homes for developmentally disabled adults, I find Palin’s “advocacy” disturbing because she’s promoting some rather damaging stereotypes about people with DS.

In particular, people with DS are almost always portrayed as always being “cute”, innocent, friendly, child-like and happy.

But in my experience, people with DS have the full range of potential personalities as any other person.

And having to live with the stereotype of being always happy and friendly, cute and childlike, can be difficult. Especially for a shy adult who is having a bad day. Being stereotyped as “innocent” makes life pretty hard for someone who is interested in sex, or swears, or smokes, or drinks, or does many of the other things that adults do in our society.

Palin’s “look! cute!” is a lie that undermines the humanity of people with DS, creating an image of a doll with various desirable features, rather than a human being.

By: sailorman

sailorman — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:46:34 +0000

Kathleen 1.14.2010 at 12:00 am

SS & Salome — I’m 100%, no questions asked, pro-choice. But I think using avoiding having a disabled child as an argument *for abortion rights* is horrible

But that doesn’t make sense unless you are trying to shame

Look, I’m for 100% choice irrespective of reasons. So if someone doesn’t want to have a kid at all, I think they should be able to abort without fuss. And if someone doesn’t want to have a kid with DS, or a kid with red hair, or a boy, or a girl, or twins, I think they should be able to abort without fuss.

Trying to make distinctions between those various reasons for abortion–by, say, being ‘concerned’ about one reason for abortion but not about others; or by, say, calling some of those reasons “horrible”–and trying to promote those distinctions, is not being 100% pro-choice. You can say you’re supportive of decisinos until doomsday, but when you say it in the same post as you cal thoe decisions horrible, it doesn’t grok.