So women who were carrying healthy fetuses could abort; if they showed signs of being disabled, they couldn't?

I disagree it's okay to ban it for any reason. These women may feel they can't take care of the resulting child; they may not be able to afford it, or they may not be able to handle it. There are some disabilities that I'd be able to handle if I wanted children; there are others that I wouldn't be able to handle. (Not wanting children, I'd have an abortion if I was pregnant, no matter how healthy the fetus.)

Who is anyone to force something on a woman that can change my life--and the lives of her family members?

clearly i agree 100%.

this piece reminded me of a ny times mag article from a while back (i couldn't find it for the life of me) on disability rights. it argued against making judgements about someone's quality of life. i understand that point of view, but not at the expense of women's right to choose...

I think I know the NY Times Magazine article you're refering to (I believe Peter Singer featured prominantly).

Ultimately, I think that women should have the right to choose.

I've worked with disabled people and a lot of the students I worked with (I was working at a college for special needs) had parents who had nothing to do with their kids. And this was in England, where the financial burden was largely taken care of. It's a tough decision, and always is regardless of the circumstances. I think the larger issue is making sure that medical and education costs are taken care of for disabled people so that it's one less of a burden on parents. This ties in with reducing abortions overall - that is, that a ban won't solve things (which is why abortions have gone up under Bush despite his anti-choice push).

Maybe some day we'll live in a world where having a seriously disabled child will present no more of a burden on women than having a healthy child. In that world, more women would choose not to abort if they knew their child would be disabled. But we are hardly there. Right now, the burden of caring for disabled children usually falls squarely on the mother. She is the one who drops out of the workforce when a child needs full time care . A lot of marriages break up when a child is seriously disabled, and a lot of siblings of disabled kids don't get the attention they need. I don't think the UN should be telling women how much suffering they should have to bear, how saintly they should have to be. Especially since they are backing off the until-recently-developing consensus in favor of women's rights generally.
I see this as basically just another anti-choice maneuver. The rep from El Salvador is on that committeee - el salvador has one of the strictest laws against abortion in the world.
Also, the only way this ban could be enforced would be in a system where abortion was permitted only for certain reasons, as is the case in many countries but not the US. If women knew they couldn't legally abort defective fetuses, there would be a big increase in illegal abortions, legal abortions performed under other rationales, and, among those who could afford it, in vitro with pre-screening of fertilized eggs. There would be covert infanticide.

Apologies in advance if this is a bit incoherent. My brain seems to be mushy today, and I have really complicated and conflicted feelings about this anyway.

First of all, to me, the people who are really dangerous to disabled folks are the anti-abortion advocates who would make an exception for a disabled fetus. Pro-choice people don't make a judgement about whether an individual's choice is right or wrong: we just hold that the woman, not the state, has to make that choice. But the anti-abortion folks are making a judgement: they are saying that a fetus has a right to life unless it is disabled, in which case its life is less valuable and less sacred. And I think that really does send a deeply dangerous message about how society values the disabled.

Otherwise, I guess you have to see it as akin to abortion for sex selection. It upsets me a lot that there are places where people routinely abort female fetuses. But that's a symptom of the low status of women in those places, and it won't be solved by outlawing abortion for sex selection. It will only be solved by improving women's status. We need to give disabled people the tools they need to succeed in mainstream society, and we need to give much, much better support to the families of seriously disabled people. When that happens, people will be much less likely to abort fetuses that will one day be disabled people. Otherwise, people are going to find ways to get around the laws.

The most urgent issue locally for disability rights advocates is the defunding of services and closing of specialized residential centers by our "pro-life" governor and legislators, not to mention the federal budget cuts for such services. As others said, not only is this bad for existing disabled people, this only increases the likelihood that prospective parents will see it as entirely rational to get an abortion of a disabled fetus.

I think this really comes down to the larger issue of legislating medical decisions. These decisions are inherently personal and every situation is slightly different. How insulting to have your choices restricted by a governing body, many of whom are biologically incapable of pregnancy.

As a woman with a severe disability (spinal muscular atrophy type II) and a diehard lesbian feminist, this is one of the toughest issues for me to wrap my head around. Would most women, upon finding out that their fetus had SMA, choose to terminate? Probably. My parents have given up a *lot* to be able to help me live a comfortable and productive life (genetic screening wasn't available 25 years ago). Furthermore, I'm in constant pain, have to have enormous self-awareness to ward off infections and injuries, have faced innumerable heartbreaks (such as not being able to go to an Ivy League school because the climate was too conducive to respiratory infections, not to mention the romantic kind)... If I found out that my fetus had SMA, would I be willing to make the sacrifices my parents have? Would I have the inner strength to be ok, knowing what challenges my child would face in life? I can't answer those questions. What I do know is that that's not the only side of the story. Living with a disability has taught me a level of compassion, humor, creativity, and insight that is rare among my non-disabled peers. I've been forced to be articulate and to stand up (figuratively) for myself. My entire family has benefitted, as individuals and collectively, from the counseling we've received to help us all deal with my condition. My disability has forced me to choose excellence over mere competence, and that's something for which I'm truly grateful. I live a happy, fulfilled life, knowing that I've learned to transform my challenges into work that benefits thousands of people.

So you see, this isn't (ethically) a clear issue at all. Aborting a fetus because it is physically imperfect (and, um, isn't everyone?) is, to me, reprehensible (especially given that many adoptive families are more than willing to care for special needs kids). And yet, how can I make a distinction here, if I truly support women's right to choose (which I do)?

I guess the only thing I can add to this discussion (aside from my experiences) is to encourage you not to think of this as a women's issue OR a disability rights issue, but instead as a human rights issue that is more complex and subtle than either of those two groups have acknowledged to date.

Becky
Ms. Wheelchair FL 2005

I think you should be able to abort anything you want...for any reason you want. It's not a baby until it's born...bottom line. it's stupid to be for only first trimester abortions...but not second...blah blah. It just muddies the water in my eyes. If it's not kicking and screaming...it's not a baby. Yes I am a man...so you can all tell me how I don't know the women's perspective. But drawing the line at birth keeps things nice and simple...

The only way I could see to treat it as a disability rights issue would be for the U. N. to say that whatever laws a country has regarding abortion, the laws would apply equally regardless of whether the fetus was disabled or not.

So in a country that leaves the abortion decision to the woman, there would be no change. In a country where it is banned, there would not be the possibility of making an exception for disabled fetuses.

Personally, I believe that it's yet one more issue where the UN opinion does not belong.

Perhaps after UNICEF gets back on track I'd be willing to STILL opine they have too much time on their hands and too much money in their pockets.

Otherwise, I could straddle the fence on this one all day.