 |
 |
On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Judy Singer 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? > No one in the disability movement is saying that. To the contrary thereare only two characteristics out there who demand a prohibition of the option of termination of their characteristic namely quite a few women and women groups whodemand the prohibition of sex selection and some gay's in a preemptive strike just in case the gay gene is found they argue testing for sexual orientationshould be prohibited. In the USA e.g. thePennsylvania abortion law proibits abortion based on the reason of sex but not on disability. WHAT the disability community IS saying is that the tests are developed to target specific characteristics which society doesn't want (and that the framework support... is developed that women have no choice anymore than to terminate (choice defined as a choice between to equaly valid options). > > It needs no excusing - you're doing us all a favour - I don't think that > arguments protecting free speech can be repeated often enough. Free speech is a myth. For many things we don't have free speech. In order to have free speech you also have to have access to distribute your speech but that is very unevenly divided for the powerful ones and the no power ones. and many government have coupled their free speech legislation with a section where free speech stops where it endangeres someone. Dr. Gregor Wolbring Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Faculty of Medicine University of Calgary 3330 Hospital Drive NW Calgary, T2N 4N1 Alberta, Canada Phone 1403-220-5448 Fax 1-403-283-4740 eFax 1-603-761-3704 e-mail [log in to unmask] webpage: http://www.thalidomide.ca/gwolbring %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%