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]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|