Mmmm, but how would you separate them, given the ephemeral nature of impairment, what is normal/acceptable, what is not, who decides this, and the fact of the complete dependence of one human being (unborn) on the mother who
carries it, both of whom are obviously very connected. At what point in human development are equal human rights and intrinsic worth bestowed and on what basis is this point agreed upon, by whom? I'm sure I've dipped my toe in deep waters, much of which I
admit not to have explored, but I cannot see the two areas as unconnected. I think we would do well to continue to struggle with these areas and not over-simplify them as merely a 'choice' or 'murder' issue, as sometimes happens, and leave it at that, as 'self-evident
truths'.
If you start with a right to individual choice of one party, the mother, to decide the issue , I think you need to argue what rights other parties in the matter may or may not have to 'choose.' Ofcourse the unborn child cannot,
making it a highly vulnerable party, often the most vulnerable one, but we can infer from the general urge by all living things to live, grow and unfold their individual potential (a concept familiar to pursuits of social inclusion), that a hypothetical 'choice'
by the unborn child would very most likely be to live, in a context where taking life is viewed as a most serious issue in all societies and a right to life is for example also stated in the UN Convention of Rights of People with Disability. If a priori you
decide that the mother is the one to decide, as also affecting her body (and mind), you have probably also decided that rationality is a primary factor in bestowing that right upon her, within a broader context of additional reasons such as who is at risk
of what kind of harm by aborting/not aborting. Obviously good choices require the important ingredient of rationality. Here we see a tension between the two areas you try to separate, because why, by extention, should 'born' people with intellectual or mental
disabilities, affecting their rationality, periodically or permanently, then be accorded equal human rights to everyone else, and have any entitlement to social inclusion? Is it OK then, as Peter Singer argues, to kill some people who have a disability on
the basis of lack of rationality, after they are born? Another tension is the absence of real choices about important things for people with disabilities throughout their lives and the limited role that this 'right' plays in them experiencing 'Good Lives',
which depend more on relational values acted out in an interdependent, less of an individualistic, world. So, on what basis then do we decide that, before birth, this right of choice, with limited roles to play in any good life, including for people with disabilities,
should be the primary operator in deciding for or against abortion, and is to be primarily applied by the mother?
Another take on abortion could be had by using Alisdair MacIntyre's framework for 'flourishing' (Dependent Rational Animals), which requires the application of rationality within a context of acknowledged vulnerability and dependence,
to become a 'practical, dependent reasoner.' This is someone who might look at abortion in a different light to that of the spotlight of the mother's individual right to choose, and involving the most vulnerable party, the unborn child, as a more equal party
in making difficult decisions. Maybe someone is aware of any papers on that topic, I'm not.
I know these are incomplete thoughts, they are for many people emotionally highly-charged issues, I am clearly not a woman but am a person with a disability, I mean no disrespect to pro- or anti abortion people and believe that
this is a very important debate, next to that of other end-of-life issues like euthanasia, also often simplistically represented as a personal choice issue.
Regards
Erik Leipoldt
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Abort67
Hello there
Yes I agree that it would be helpful to separate out the issue of aborting disabled foetuses – a very important part of disabled people’s rights and liberation
from a discussion about abortion in general – a very important part of women’s rights and liberation
Best Wishes
Lynne
Colin
I totally agree that this space should be one of vigorous and challenging debate and engagement. That is why I joined it and
why, though I disagree (in fact because I disagree)with lots of views here, find it a stimulating environment in which to observe and engage. My views on many things have
been changed, refined and improved simply by being here. This said, I do not think it Orwellian to find a link to Abort67 offensive when it’s whole raison d’etre is one which
seeks to remove the rights of women to make decisions about their lives/bodies. If the link had been to a site which challenged the orthodoxy that abortion of a ‘disabled’ foetus is right/normal/understandable, this
to me would have been a very different matter and more consistent with what you say below and more akin to what I see this place as being about. I don’t ask that challenging information/views aren’t posted – far from it – but simply that thought is given to
this matter...and when challenged, the response is not to suggest comments are made in a dismissive/totalitatarian way, but rather in a firmly held believe in a rather complicated
world
Best wishes
Grahame
Christopher et al
I totally agree with you that all research to have a critical eye and mature and objective critical response. Many Disabled People have different views to others on here and this should be embraced at all times as the right to freedom of expression - Is it
right that we should have an 'Owellian' 'BIG BROTHER' stance what information and viewpoint people sent to this group? Is that not what many of us with the grassroots disabled peoples' equality, human and civil movements
have been demanding that 'Our' voices are heard and the unlawful killing of Disabled People is STOPPED; this then means having social-spaces to listen and include 'dissenting-voices' too.
Colin Revell
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:06:57 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Abort67
To: [log in to unmask]
I want to make it clear from the start that what I do not endorse is the pro-life or anti-choice position being peddled here.
I also want to make it clear that I dislike getting spammed by it as much as the next person.
I am curious however, if our strong reactions to this are because it endorses a mandate we ourselves do not endorse. I.E. I wonder if we would be so quick to express our dislike for such a message were it to be from
a group that supported the rights of women to control what happens with their bodies.
After all, we are doing "critical" research here, and that doesn't only mean being critical of things we dislike. It includes a critical examination of the positions we take
for granted as well.
If we can promote causes and positions that we clearly endorse, it seems bizarre to me that we are up in arms when someone simply provides us information about a position we do not view favourably. Perhaps we can
take it as an opportunity to express our critical reflections on the topic, rather than simply express our dismissive inclinations.
I am on this list to engage in (or view) critical discussions with its members. I dislike being told what to feel about the abortion debate equally by the initial post, as I do the subsequent ones expressing a concern
about it - both fail to engage critically with the debate and instead, simply attempt to tell me what is acceptable or not.
Any rate, perhaps I'm just being cynical today.
Christopher
On 29/09/2011 2:55 PM, Philippa wrote:
I concur with Liz, Katherine, Margo and Grahame,
No anti-choice propaganda for me, thanks.
====
My blog: http://incurable-hippie.blogspot.com
On 29 September 2011 19:14, grahame whitfield <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
Obviously ... Were not!
Apologies for double post
On 29 Sep 2011, at 19:11, grahame whitfield <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> At risk of repeating previous posts, I would be grateful If such highly offensive material were distributed on this list. The abort67 site is extraordinarily offensive and seems to me to be fundamentalist in nature
with it's underlying agenda (poorly) concealed in an attempt at credibility.
>
> On 29 Sep 2011, at 18:53, "Seelman, Katherine Delores" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I strongly agree with Liz Ellis.
>>
>> Katherine D. Seelman, Ph.D.
>> Professor Rehabilitation Science and Technology
>> Associate Dean Disability Programs
>> School of
Health and Rehabilitation Sciences
>> University of
Pittsburgh
>> 5036 Forbes
Tower
>> Pittsburgh,
PA 15260
>> 412-383-6727
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.pitt.edu/~kds31
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Liz Ellis
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:39 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Abort67
>>
>> Dear Colin,
>>
>> Whilst I don't mind you sending information via the group to me regarding disability issues or even alternative therapies, I have to say I strongly object to getting information from organisations that want to dictate
to me what I can and cannot do with my body.
>>
>> I therefore ask that you be mindful of what you send out in future.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Liz Ellis
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: The Disability-Research Discussion List on behalf of Colin REvell
>> Sent: Thu 29-Sep-11 4:21 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Abort67
>>
>>
>> Abort67 is the name given to the public education project that seeks to change the way we think about abortion.
>>
>> In 1967 the Abortion Act was passed granting legal abortions to all women. We would like to see the law reversed giving full protection to the unborn.
>> The best way
>>
>> to achieve this goal of changing public policy is to first change public opinion.
>>
>> Abort67 is partnered with The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) and CBR
UK. Abort67 is a non-religious organisation though many of our supporters and volunteers belong to various faith groups.
>>
>> Abortion is not just a "religious" issue it is a matter of human rights that all should be concerned about.
>>
>> http://www.abort67.co.uk
>> Colin Revell
>> ________________End of message________________
>>
>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the
University of
Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>>
>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
>>
>> Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>>
>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
>>
>> ________________End of message________________
>>
>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the
University of
Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>>
>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
>>
>> Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>>
>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
>>
>> ________________End of message________________
>>
>> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the
University of
Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>>
>> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
>>
>> Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>>
>> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
>
> ________________End of message________________
>
> This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the
University of
Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
>
> Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
>
> Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the
University of
Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
________________End of message________________ This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the
University of
Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
--
Christopher A. Riddle
The Department of Philosophy
John Watson Hall, Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario - K7L 3N6 Canada
Office: John Watson Hall 024
Phone: 613-533-6000 X 78465
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
________________End of message________________ This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the
University of
Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the
University of
Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential information, copyright material or views/opinions that do not necessarily reflect those of Bradford and Airedale teaching Primary Care Trust. If you receive this email by
mistake please advise the sender immediately. All should be aware that this email may be subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and that emails may be monitored.....
________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page. ________________End of message________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).
Enquiries about list administration should be sent to
[log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.