AUTHOR: Redaspie DATE: Sunday, July 23, 2006 ----- BODY:

"Abortion Rights believes that all women, including disabled women, have
the right to make their own reproductive choices. All women have the right to
choose abortion for whatever reason. No woman should be persuaded to either
terminate, or carry a pregnancy to term, whatever her situation and whether or
not the fetus shows signs of impairment. The decision of any woman to have an
abortion for reasons of impairment is hers alone and should be respected.

Abortion Rights fully supports the rights of disabled people, and supports
the work of the disability rights movement to bring about recognition of their
dignity and human rights and to change society for the fullest participation of
disabled people. Abortion Rights recognises that we live in a society which
discriminates against and devalues disabled people and that disabled women are
denied real choice because of prejudice and discrimination in society."

The above is the official statement from one of the key pro-choice groups in Britain, Abortion Rights. The full statement is here, although the bulk of the very short statement can be found above. I am posting this after some discussion about the decision by the commercial LGBT tv station Gay TV, based in America, to run adverts by Autism Speaks, the central point of which discussion was the long history of oppressed groups failing to stand alongside each other. And one such example has been the anti-abortion stance taken by some disability rights activists, with particularly reference to the issue of pre-natal testing, which in many cases leads directly to the abortion of disabled fetuses. This is a big issue of debate among autism rights activists at this moment in time.

Recent protests organised by Aspies For Freedom against research into finding a pre-natal test for autism targeted the idea of developing a test in and of itself, rather than the uses that it could be put to, and this I believe was entirely misplaced, as was the use in the official logo of rhetoric concerning the 'lives that will be lost' due to pre-natal testing and abortion of autistic fetuses. Now, the phrase in itself is by no means factually inaccurate - it is true that every time an abortion is carried out a specific individual is preventing from being born, and a potential life is halted. This is why fetuses must be seen as having some kind of moral standing. Even pro-choice activists recognise this, as can be seen if one skims through this interview from Radio 4's Woman's Hour. However, to describe the prevention of autistics' lives by abortion as something that should be mourned begs the question, why should aborted disabled fetuses be mourned but not non-disabled ones? The logic of the argument carries us back to the pro-life position on abortion.

It's important to make several distinctions in the argument here. It is a different thing to argue that it is wrong for women as individuals to have an abortion because the baby is disabled, than it is to argue that it is unacceptable that the vast majority of disabled fetuses detected pre-natally are aborted. It is also a different thing to argue that the large-scale abortion of fetuses is unacceptable, than it is to argue that the use of pre-natal testing and abortion to eliminate disability in society is wrong. In my view, although the fact that the vast majority of, for instance, fetuses pre-natally detected as having Down's Syndrome are aborted, is a serious issue, this does not mean we must then conclude that any woman who aborts a fetus with Down's Syndrome is automatically at fault. The problem is that it presupposes that women make these judgements purely out of bigotry, and also implies that we can start laying down restrictions telling women under what circumstances it is and when it is not OK to have an abortion.

The argument that views the issue as one simply as opposing the abortion of disabled fetuses as a form of discrimination fail to see that this issue is inseparable from wider issues of discrimination, as the quotation at the top of this post notes. Put quite simply, the reason why most women abort the fetus upon discovery of a disability is not because they are all bigots who can't be bothered to look after a disabled child, but in fact due to a complex set of factors, central to which is the denial to women of real choice in the matter both due to the almost universal bias in the medical establishment in favour of the idea of eliminating disability, and the systematic discrimination that disabled people encounter in their lives - this sharply reduces the quality of life of disabled people, and reinforces the view of disabled people as unfortunate, even as tragic, and whose lives are not worth living. Little surprise that women then decide to abort rather than give birth to a child who, as far as they know, may face a very poor future.

If these are the causes of the mass abortion of disabled fetuses, then this carries a powerful tactical logic. It means that the targets of campaigning for disability rights should be the structures and ideologies of discrimination in society, rather than trying to persuade women who are carrying disabled fetuses not to have abortions, or indeed campaiging against research into pre-natal testing. In fact, the existence of such a test could very well be useful in preparing parents for the extra challenges that having a disabled child will likely bring. It also means aligning with the pro-choice movement in order to campaign for full reproductive rights, including full information about disability in order to allow expectant mothers to make a fully informed choice. This will almost certainly require the democratisation of the pre-natal process, with women taking control of the process rather than leaving it to be organised by the medical profession.

Finally, I'd like to urge anyone reading this to have a look at this article, an excellent piece of work which gives a much more thorough-going examination of the issues than I am able to do.

-------- COMMENT-AUTHOR:

Redaspie COMMENT-DATE:10:59 AM COMMENT-BODY:I'm not aware of this nathzn. Could you give a little more info about this? It sounds interesting. -------- COMMENT-AUTHOR:

Redaspie COMMENT-DATE:8:33 PM COMMENT-BODY:Nathzn - your point would certainly be an interesting one to look into, as in its interesting that doctors don't give out any info that would allow the creation of designer babies, but try their best to make very sure that parents know whether the fetus has a disability, and what they think should be done about it!
However, the main point I was trying to argue was that there was no incompatability with reproductive choice for women and opposing eugenic elimination of disabled fetuses. Did anyone read the article I linked to at the bottom? I think its probably the finest piece of writing on the subject I've yet seen.
Anyway, have to go. Got a job interview on Friday so I have to prepare. Busy busy! -------- COMMENT-AUTHOR:

Redaspie COMMENT-DATE:8:29 AM COMMENT-BODY:Not sure I get your point, nathzn. --------