On Wed, 07 Jul 1999 09:59:18 -0500, you wrote:
>But isn't the Disability Rights Movement's attitude towards the abortion
>> > of disabled children also Utilitarian? Aren't they saying that the
>> > occasional parent who doesn't want to give birth to a disabled child for
>> > whatever reason must be forced to, for the greater good of the majority
>> > of people with disabilities?
>
>I have read a number of arguments on this abortion of fetus' with
>disabilities and they all seem to say that aborting a child with a
>disability is done for the sake of the parent so as not to bring a child
>into a world that discriminates against it. I think this is a specious
>statement because you don't hear the disability rights movement fighting
>against the abortion of minority individuals (who are also discriminated
>against) Is the single black mother who gets an abortion because she can't
>take care of a child, supposed to have the child anyway for the greater
>good of the race? Are any of you willing to take your argument that far?
>Also, is abortion of a fetus with a disability ALWAYS done for the good of
>the parent--what about not wanting to bring a child into a world of
>painkillers, medications chemotherapy, respirators etc. Its nice to
>believe that living, at any cost, is important but how many of you are
>currently going thru severe pain or other severe problems. Not that I
>think Singer is right, but I think that like everything else, these
>decisions need to be made on a case by case basis and I believe that
>whatever the reason, abortion is a choice that is only the business of the
>parents.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 02:43 PM 7/7/99 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>>I can't speak for the Disability Rights Movement, at least in Britain, for
>>we are still in the process of consulting our member groups over a wide
>>range of issues to do with the new genetics. However, in our discussion
>>document (http://www.bcodp.org.uk/general/genetics.html) one of the
>>proposed position points is as follows:
>>
>>. "We unequivocally support women's right to choose with respect to
>>their pregnancies, for such decisions are made in circumstances unique to
>>each person. However, women must also feel able to continue with a
>>pregnancy, secure in the knowledge that they will be bringing a child into
>>a society which does not discriminate against disabled people. This is
>>because we reject the current framework of prejudice against and fear of
>>disabled people, which the new genetics has considerably exacerbated, and
>>which at the moment works such a powerfully negative influence on women's
>>choice."
>>
>>I stress again, this is a proposed, not an accepted statement from the
>>BCODP. For a somewhat fuller discussion of this particular issue I refer
>>you to the document.
>>
>>>But isn't the Disability Rights Movement's attitude towards the abortion
>>>of disabled children also Utilitarian? Aren't they saying that the
>>>occasional parent who doesn't want to give birth to a disabled child for
>>>whatever reason must be forced to, for the greater good of the majority
>>>of people with disabilities?
>>>
>>>
>>>Judy
>>
>>
>>Dr. Bill Albert
>>Chair
>>International Sub Committee
>>British Council of Disabled People
>>(Home address)
>>The White House
>>Marionville Road
>>St.Clements Hill
>>Norwich, NR3 4DD
>>UK
>>
>>Phone 01603 402003 011 44 1603 402003
>>Fax 01603 423432 011 44 1603 423432
>>e-mail W. [log in to unmask]
>>
>Carlos Clarke Drazen
>UIC Athletics/Department of Disability and Human Development
>1640 West roosevelt RD m/c 626
>312/413-7520 v 312/413-1326 FAX
>[log in to unmask]
>To sign off the list, send a message to
>* [log in to unmask]
>* with the message
>* signoff dsshe-l
>To search the archives, go to
><http://listserv.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=dsshe-l>http://listserv.buffalo.
>edu/cgi-bin/wa?S1=dsshe-l
>Questions? Contact Listowner Dan Ryan at [log in to unmask]
>
>
Peter Singer is up front on the issue of life unworthy of life. I
totally disagree with his viewpoint but at least he is honest; I know
where I stand with Singer.
What really concerns me is how the issue of abortion, the socially
accepted right to end the life of an other human being, for what ever
reason, is considered any different from Singer's attitude towards
unwanted human beings.
What further concerns me is how the scientific research for the cure
and treatments of, in particular genetic defects, is manifesting
itself. Think of all the money that people over the years have raised
in good faith to further genetic engineering and how it is becoming
very quickly a doomsday scenario for an ever increasing body of
people. There are very few successful genetically oriented
treatments - as far as I know - and for those of us who have
neuromuscular impairments there is not much hope, if that's what you
want, of there being any in the near or even distant future. It could
be argued that we are indeed the "Last of the Mohicans" because we
"floppies" are in the front line of the prevention and abortion
"choice". Philosophically, we ask what is 'normal' and it is very
hard to define it can be argued. Philosophically, I ask what is
"choice" and that question answered for me in this contemporary
society quite often says "who we don't want we kill" or
"therapeutically terminate".
Yes we are approaching the millennium, and the debate is just the same
as it was at it's begriming: who do we value, who do we not value,
who do we kill, who do we not kill. And unfortunately we are all
players in this sad game to a greater or lesser extent. So despite
the undoubted social, scientific and technical advances -it would seem
as human beings we still have a long way to go.
Peter Brawley.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|