I used to think it was really weird that so many anti-choicers object to welfare and other kinds of income assistance, paid parental leave, universal health care, cheap/free contraception and basically anything else that might reduce abortion and make life easier for women who choose not to terminate their pregnancies.

Then I realised that, for a lot of them, abortion is very much a secondary (if that) concern. They want women who have sex to be punished. Just forcing them to have children they can't afford or don't want isn't enough; they want to make life as miserable and difficult as possible, because otherwise women would be 'getting off easy' and not suffering sufficiently. That's why they don't really care that banning abortion doesn't really work, but just makes it much more dangerous. They want women to be subordinated to men, to be slaves to their (our) biology. Doesn't matter if women die. Doesn't matter that abortion rates don't go down. Doesn't matter if children end up in orphanages and/or in poverty. That's all irrelevant or even desirable in a fundamentalist anti-choicer's misanthropic (particularly misogynistic) fantasy world.

When I realised this, it all made a lot more sense.

I am pro-life all the way, but i agree that we should have a more socialistic system at least in America. my feelings are not to punish the woman, but to help her. I am of the firm belief that abortion cannot be safely abolished if we do not first hav social reform. one can ban alcohol in the middle east easily because the culture contors to the idea. one cannot ban it the United states because it is outraging. I hope some day to see a Western Culture admit that killing babies is wrong. but i also do not want to see a bunch of dead mothers accompanying their dead children. we need to begin the process of illegalizing abortion from a slow and painful route cauld social reform. hopefully one day, we will hold our heads up high and say we did it. we abolished the practice from our mythes. until then i would not punish a woman for sex. just hope she chooses not to punish some one else for it.

Honestly, Emma, your comments made me laugh. First of all, I AM a woman-I definitely am not pro life because I want women to be punished for having sex. That is not the point. Frankly, I don't give a crap about other people's sexual lives. Moreover, your mention of non-fatal genetic "illnesses" as having a "negative impact on the child's quality of life," smacks of ableism, your mention of depression and eating disorders as reasons not to pass one's genes only supports contentions that contemporary abortion has been hijacked by eugenic-like goals.

Moreover, you make it sound as if pro choicers are the only people on earth who have endorsed or supported programs to help children. This is woefully inaccurate, as such programs have been ardently supported by people from both sides of the political aisle. Sometimes I feel like that particular argument is just a way for pro choice individuals to justify themselves as righteous do-gooders and avoid having honest discussions about the impact of abortion on women, children, and important diversity issues.

When more pro choice people come out and oppose disability-based abortion like they would abortion performed because of a foetus' race, then your position will, at the least, be free from a later history of support for post-eugenics.

Progo35, it's charming to see that you find such amusement in my personal struggles and in the suicides of my family members.

Please spare me the eugenics BS. I do not want to bring a child into the world when that child has a greater than average chance of experiencing severe psychiatric illnesses up to the point of not wanting to live. That's not about 'eugenics' - I'm not talking about attempting to eliminate certain traits I view as 'evolutionarily undesirable; I am talking about my personal desire to not subject a child to a life that has a higher than likely chance at being a struggle. How dare you suggest that I am some kind of Nazi eugenicist driven by racism and ableism. Do you have any idea of the kind of pain that drives a person to starve herself down to 70lbs? To be too depressed to get out of bed? The amount of agony and suffering that has driven relatives of mine to take their own lives? I would never want to create a child who would have a higher than usual chance of suffering in this way.

I do hope you realise you have just demonstrated the exact kind of callous lack of compassion that seems to afflict so many anti-choicers.

Thank you so much for your kindness, Behe. It means a lot.

Emma xxx

Emma and Behe-

I'm not sorry. Yes, I do know what it's like to have anorexia and severe depression, as I had/have them, too. I struggle with the kind of depression you talk about and with a very rare learning disorder on a daily basis. In addition to my life-long disabilities, I almost died from anorexia 10 years ago. I find your position on childbearing as oppressive to women who are suffering from these conditions-you are arguing that childbearing in such cases is immoral, and thereby justifying this position as something that other women should adopt. Women should not have to make decisions about their pregnancy with the pressure of that kind of thinking hovering over their heads.

Yes, your reasoning for not bringing a child into the world is eugenic, although voluntarily imposed. "Eugenic" applies to not wanting to perpetuate certain genes, whether that be in yourself or someone else. This kind of thinking is what is hurting the disabled community. Moreover, you cited the "quality of life" argument that is responsible for many women choosing abortion because of misconceptions regarding their down syndrome/disabled fetus' potential. Many of these choices are also influenced by counselors, family members, and an overall environment that encourages This hurts human diversity, and is something that all of us, pro choice and pro life, should be gravely concerned about. You did not talk about any family members dying in your previous post, so there was no way for me to express sympathy or sensitivity to that. I am so sorry to hear that, I truly am.

This post, however, is meant to address the line of thinking indicated in your previous post, which is eugenic and hurts the handicapped. Eugenics do not need to be imposed by the government to be what they are. My ire is not directed at you as a pro choicer, a position that is held by many disability advocates who support abortion rights but oppose abortions done based on handicap. My ire is at the position that you articulate and justify as a choice that protects human freedom, diversity, and tolerance. It does not. To read more about this, I recommend the book The Black Stork, which addresses eugenics in American society. Eugenic practices were considered noble when engage in voluntarily, and were based on the exact thinking that you articulate in your previous post. When you articulate that position, you are slipping back into the same thinking that drives true prejudice, hatred, and oppression in our society.

So, I am sorry for your loses in your family, but I am not sorry for what I said in regard to your position, which our society advertises as an enlightened path to follow.

Moreover, this article spreads misinformation about pro life individuals and policies. Pro life organizations have devoted extensive time and resources to assisting pregnant women and their families. This article attempts to mislead its audience by asserting that pro life people don't care about pregnant women and have never attempted to provide support for them before. Not true, biased, and hateful, period.

Emma-

-my comments concerning eugenics are backed by research,
-it is okay if you do not feel like responding, blogs are open forums that many people read,
-According to the NY Times, hardly a pro life outlet, ninety percent of all down syndrome fetuses are aborted. It doesn't matter what the women involved intend, that does amount to destroying an entire race,
-I am okay with my disabilities, I embrace them as a part of my life story and would encourage anyone facing such issues to do the same,

but I support Emma's decision. I wouldn't want her to have a child against her deeply held concerns.

Yes, Hitler did oppose abortion when it was the woman's choice, but, what I am referring to is the fact that he loved abortion when it was forcibly performed on women because they were had or were viewed as having congenital illnesses/disabilities.

Otaku-you are not taking the original meaning of the term "race" into account when replying to my comment. Originally, "race" referred to more than just a person's ethnicity. It also referred to the human race in general and the characteristics thereof. Thus, traditional racism was borne from the object of eliminating traits that were deemed undesirable, and any people group that exhibited such traits was considered a "race." So, yes, abortion that results in 90 percent of down syndrome fetuses being aborted does destroy an entire "Race" of people.

It is not "hateful" to oppose abortion as long as one does not advocate violence against the women who have abortions or against the people who perform them. It is, however, hateful to characterize all pro life people in the way they are portrayed in this blog. If Emma's logic holds up, than I, a pro-life woman, want to oppress myself. That is what I am referring to in mentioning my pro life stance.

Moreover, the discussion we are having about abortion and disabilities is not a pro life discussion, per se. It is something that people on both sides of the political aisle-pro choice and pro life, have expressed grave concerns about. I hope that even if my position on abortion were to change, I would still oppose abortion based on disability, as do many pro choice leaders of the disability rights movement.

One of the problems is that NARAL freaks out whenever ANY restriction is placed on abortion, at all. They seem to want women to have the freedom to have abortions up until nine months. R v. W was supposed to legalize abortion in the first trimester, not up until birth, yet NARAL and PP are not willing to compromise, and continue to push for late term for non fatal disabilities, such as cleft pallet, down syndrome, deafness, and other characteristics that make up the spectrum of human diversity. So, a lot of pro life people feel like the argument for compromise is only applicable to people on the pro life side, and pro choice people don't have any obligations in that regard. What are your thoughts on that?

Reasonable restrictions do not/do not have to represent an incremental approach to outlawing abortion. Personally I think that there is a significant difference between an early abortion and a late one. Reasonable restrictions simply represent common sense from a pro choice standpoint. It is harmful to everyone involved to oppose reasonable restrictions-it takes the abortion issue away from the issue of women's health and makes it into a technical mess-at eight months, the fetus is still inside the woman's body so she can have an abortion, if it threatens any aspect of her health, including her economic health. It is not true that viability occurs at 28 weeks. The youngest baby to survive after being born prematurely was 21 weeks. My nephew was born at 25 weeks. All of that aside, late term abortions are disproportionately carried out because of fetal disability.

It is completely acceptable to point out the consequences of a 90 percent abortion rate for disabled fetuses, that does not amount to calling women in general "destroyers of a race." Women may remain free to make these decisions despite reasonable criticism.

"reasonable criticism."

You appear to be suggesting that criticism of women who choose not to bring disabled children into this world is "reasonable."

Somehow, I feel certain that if the men were responsible for the 24/7 care of these children...abortion would be a a respected duty.

Ahunt-you have changed to topic to a gripe against men, which has no relevance to this discussion. It doesn't matter who does the terminating-if men could get pregnant and they terminated their pregnancies because of disability, they wouldn't get any more "respect" from me or anyone else concerned with this trend. It is perfectly reasonable to criticize choices that cause the destruction of an entire group of people because they weren't born. Not criticizing that makes abortion into a way for people to have the "right" to the kind of child that they want to have, which is not what abortion was meant to enable.

It has all relevance. Who is responsible for the 24/7 care?

Both parents are responsible. The late term abortions I am talking about usually occur when a pregnancy was wanted by a couple but was terminated when the couple learned of the disability. This is different from the situation of a single mother who has an abortion because whoever was responsible for her pregnancy abandoned her. That is why it doesn't matter whether or not it is the female or hypothetically the male having the abortion-usually, both parents agree on such a decision before it is carried out. For instance, a couple in Italy was "devastated" when the wrong twin was accidentally aborted when they were trying to abort the other one, who had down syndrome. It wasn't that they didn't want children, they just didn't want that child. They would not have been devastated if the fetus with down syndrome was aborted, which shows extreme prejudice on their part that has nothing to do with who cares for the child. Moreover, I believe that you are exaggerating the difference between the care needed for disabled children and other children-really, all children need/recieve 24 hour care, not just those with disablities.

Anonymous-you are, once again, missing the point of the disability rights issue inherent in this discussion. The very heart of the disability rights movement is that our culture is currently so focused on "curing" disability that it has actually embraced abortion as a "cure". We generally regard that as reflective of a social fear of disability in which cures are focused on without regard for accommodating those who have/embrace their disabilities, borne of our society's fear of disabled people. Ie, people don't just want to cure people out of compassion, they want to cure disabled people so that they won't have to interact with/live with them.

I'm talking about the nature of cure in relation to how our society currently regards/treats handicapped people. Instead of working for our acceptance and accommodation, our society is obsessed with "curing" us. If I were cured, would that help me, or everyone else who has to "put up with" my disability? It doesn't matter what I think about cures themselves, it is how they are used in our society to ignore the current, real needs of the handicapped. The cures you speak of aren't here, and we are, so we have a right to be indignant when fetuses that would grow up to be like us are aborted en masse, and no one says anything about how that hurts diversity.

Exactly-you have ignored what I'm saying about accommodations vs. cures by implying that I said that you want to reduce accommodations, which is not what I implied. You just want me to answer that question so that if I say "yes, I would favor cures" you can say that I am admitting that disability is a bad thing and not the same thing as race, and if I say, "no, I don't favor cures" you can say that I am a zealot who wants to deny treatment to disabled people.

This goes back to my earlier contention, that opposition to abortion based on disability is not a pro life issue, it is an issue that people of pro life and pro choice convictions have expressed concern about. I revealed my pro life stance because of what was said about pro life people here, which I find offensive as a woman, but like my stance on cures, it doesn't matter what my stance on abortion is if the issue at hand is whether or not abortion based on disability constitutes prejudice. Like I've said repeatedly, many pro choice disability rights organizations are gravely concerned and have spoken about this.

... nor is it a "diversity of human condition". Almost all trisomal chromosomal disorders are fatal or incompatible with obtaining consciousness- the exception being some percentage of fetuses with trisomy 21, also known as Down syndrome. It is believed the majority of conceptions with the extra chromosomal material are miscarried. I would not say that a living, breathing person with DS is anything less than a person, nor are they a "mistake". From a purely biological standpoint though, nature does not seem to intend for genetic "errors" to be viable in general. People seem to suffer from "Corky syndrome" where they think all people with DS are healthy and high functioning- and, for many, this is not the case.

Do I want the absolute best in education, care, and integration of people with DS (and other developmental handicaps) into society? Absolutely! Do I believe that abortion should be the automatic response to finding out a wanted pregnancy is carrying a fetus with trisomy 21? Of course not. It is an extremely personal decision made by people who have to decide for themselves if they are capable of raising a child with special needs, or if they are willing to place their child up for adoption (which of course carries its own difficulties, not the least of which is finding a family who desires to bring in a special needs infant). This choice, like any other choice in pregnancy, can ONLY be made by those involved.

 Thirteen years ago the prenatal testing was not as accurate as it is today, and I refused an AFP as the rate of false-positives was high. I was 23 years old, with one healthy child already, there was no reason to risk a false-positive and related scares with an uncertain blood test. It was not until my daughter's birth we had a clue anything was "wrong". Thankfully my beautiful little girl is generally healthy, no heart or GI defects, and pretty high functioning, reading at a second grade level and doing double-digit math. Do I wish it could be different for her, not to have to face struggles for a lifetime? Yes. Do I wish it could be different for -me-, selfish as it sounds? Hell yes. Would I have carried my pregnancy to term knowing I would bear a child with Down syndrome?

 I don't know. I think the answer probably would have been no.

It doesn't make me love my daughter any less. But I can't condemn people who would choose not to have a baby with DS.

Yes, as I've said, DS is part of human diversity and discrimination against such people does fit into the more basic, original definition of "racial health," eg, racism. You are inaccurate when you imply that DS is incompatible with life, as the majority of people with DS lead productive lives. I am not "condemming" women who have abortions because of DS. I am arguing against prejudice in the abortion decision making process. I don't really care about what your position is on accommodations, that is not the point. We can't enjoy accommodation if we aren't here.