Special-needs and choice

Reader diary posted by TheRealistMom

April 17, 2009 - 1:03am

TheRealistMom's picture

On the site of late there have been a great many posts and debates in regards to what is "ethical" in regards to the reasons a woman might not choose to continue her pregnancy. Being firmly pro-choice, the reasons, for me, generally do not matter except to work to ensure that some of the reasons that are negative to women and families are addressed. Reasons such as domestic violence, poverty, lack of education or access to contraception are in dire need of attention- but in the end what matters is that the woman still has the right to decide if she wishes to continue a pregnancy or not.

 One of the reasons a woman might choose to abort a wanted pregnancy that seems to come under fire a great deal is if there is fetal defect. With the advancements in prenatal testing  the date of finding out there may be a serious issue has been pushed back- but so has the time that a fetus might be considered viable with medical advancements. Many conditions that might not have been treatable in years past have a better outlook, yet there may be less of a chance for births of children with these conditions to take place since advance knowledge may lead to the pregnancy being terminated.  So therein lay the conundrums of what conditions are "severe" enough to be "accepted" as reasons to abort. People melodramatically cry out strawmen of eugenics and playing god, but why should anyone have to justify their decision? Why, indeed.

 Even fourteen years ago when I was pregnant with my second child prenatal testing was nowhere near the accuracy of today. As a twenty-three year old woman with one healthy child already there was no reason for me  to have an alpha fetal protein test; there was a high rate of false-positives and the risks involved in a later amniocentesis at the time were greater than the chances of there being something detectably wrong. So it was when my daughter who is now thirteen was born with Down syndrome it was a complete and total shock. (I suspect, however, the military hospital where I had prenatal care suspected something, nuchal fold measurements were taken more than once, something I now know to be a marker for trisomy 21.) An Air Force colonel wearing BDU's beneath his lab coat dropped the news to me like an atomic bomb.

I wished my child had been stillborn. I thought about giving her up for adoption if my then-husband agreed. What did we know about trisomy 21? These are the things they don't talk about when people gloss over reality by talking about "trips to Holland" and "god giving special children to special people." I sure as hell didn't feel special. I felt betrayed, angry. I mourned the loss of the child that could have been, and still do. I can't imagine what it is like for someone to lose a child, and I would never demean their grief by saying they can "get over it" or "move on". Yet every day in the back of my mind that mourning is still there, because I know my beautiful little girl will never have the same opportunities that a "normal" child would. There is no "moving on". There is acceptance, and love for the child you have. There is advocacy and trying to live a normal life.

 The thing is, these feelings are the norm for parents of disabled children. It's just not spoken of. We're supposed to have this united front, this smile and acceptance of what life has thrown our way. We're supposed to pretend to the outside world  that we never would have wanted anything different for our children. Pardon the French, but bullshit. If I could "take it back" somehow, I would. Nature, in its wisdom, doesn't intend for conceptions with trisomy to survive. Most embryos with chromosomal anomalies are shed. Trisomy 21, or Down syndrome, is pretty much the only survivable triplicate chromosomal disorder  with the exception of sex chromosome duplicates. It is estimated that probably 2/3 or more  of conceptions with trisomy 21 are miscarried. 

I love my daughter with every fiber of my being. Yet I cannot say that had I it all to over again, had I known of the Down syndrome, that I would have continued the pregnancy that resulted in her birth. This outlook doesn't win me favors in a lot of DS communities, but it is reality. If someone like me who has a disabled child can say they would not have chosen this experience, after having our wonderful children, how the hell can we EVER condemn a woman who knows she is unable to take on this burden for herself before there is even a child brought into the world? How "bad" does it have to be for it to be "ok" for her to recognize that she cannot cor will not be able to deal with this reality?

I know to many this will sound terribly selfish. Perhaps it is in some ways. But it is also humanitarian in others. When I was pregnant with my third child, there was a chance he had a chromosomal disorder- trisomy 18. This is a disorder incompatible with life. Most fetuses die in utero; if not, ninety percent of those that make it to term die within a month of birth. They do not attain any meaningful consciousness. Would this have been "bad" enough to warrant a late term abortion? I was prepared for this when I awaited the results of the amniocentesis. Would it have been better for me to birth a child that had no chance to live, for my other children to have a brother who would die?

I've rambled on I'm sure, and deviated from the original point, or perhaps not. The thing is, none of us have the ability to know what is going on in any woman's head when she makes her choices. None of us have the ability or right to decide what she can or cannot endure, or what constitutes quality of life.  Nobody can step into her shoes and decide if her reasons are "good enough", or if it is "right" or "wrong" to make a decision based on her perceptions are for the fetus' later life. I love my daughter... but I would love for her to have a chance for a normal existence as well.


. . . . .
115 comments

Realist,
Thank you for sharing your story. I have to ask whether you have done any research on Eugenics as a philosophy, or if you are basing your argument on what you've heard others say about the connection beteen a termination based on disability and eugenics? Because there is a big difference. Moreover, what, to you, does "taking a trip to Holland" refer to?

 

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 8:15am.

I do thank you for phrasing your question in such a polite manner though, I know based on your shared stories this is a topic close to your heart.

 What I mean by a "strawman" is not that in and of itself, choosing to not continue a pregnancy based on a disability is not in any way similar to eugenics philosophies. To someone who believed in the "purity" of human genetics and wishing to ensure the "perfection" of the human genome, who wanted to ensure resources were spent only on the "worthy",  terminating a pregnancy with a signifigant defect would not only be desirable but a necessity. This I personally believe to be an immoral viewpoint, (I know some would call me hypocritical at this point, but I see a large difference between a personal decision based on specific circumstances and a worldview that completely marginalizes those who are different) but my personal morals can't be taken into consideration for another woman and her decision making.

 So what I do mean by it being a strawman is that some hold it up  to mean that if we permit women to make this choice that it will eventually become either state mandated or encouraged as a matter of course, that people who DO choose to continue their pregnancy will be stigmatized because they are doing something against a percieved common good. I have enough faith in humanity in general, and a feeling we learned from the past (our own nasty history of enforced sterilization in the United States of the "unfit" being just one of the lessons learned) to believe that it's a terribly slippery slope to go from personal choices to a societal view encompassing and enforcing "fitness" as an ideal.

As far as "going to Holland", I just found the metaphor trite. While in some ways yes I get to see a new part of the world, it doesn't change the fact that "Holland" will never have everything that Paris does, and it makes me hurt not for me the tourist but for one who will never be able to experience Paris.

 I hope this made some kind of sense- I'm on my first cup of coffee. :)

Submitted by TheRealistMom on April 17, 2009 - 8:49am.

Thank you, realist mom. I will reply back with more later.

quot;Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 10:59am.

It looks like the first person's comment regarding this post was deleted. Is this blog for real discussion or are the moderators engaging in censorship?

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 11:03am.

RealistMom, I can genuinely appreciate the difficulties of living as a disabled person in this culture. I am multiply disabled, and my daughter has ADHD. So I can relate to some of the things you are saying. It can be overwhelming at times. My daughter is in college now, raising her son, and doing well, but how well I remember dealing with a hyperactive teen when some of my own disabilities are so fatiguing!

However, as a disability rights advocate, I cannot accept that prenatal detection and destruction of humans with so-called "defects" does anything to promote our human rights, before and after birth. I think this phenomenon completely undermines our efforts as disabled people to create a more hospitable world for ourselves--and for nondisabled people, too.

Eugenics is no straw man. Disabled people deal with its fallout every day. For example, the eugenic notion that disabled people who cannot work gainfully do not deserve prompt, generous public financial support--if any.

That's why today it's such a big pain in the butt to get social security disability. I am on year two of waiting for a judge's hearing on my case, to get a $700/month check--when corrupt companies instantly get these huge bailouts. Money talks, doesn't it? Greed-besotted corporations are deemed more valuable in this country than my sacred life or those of other disabled people...that's a legacy of eugenics, which was tied to a brutal version of capitalist economics.

If I wasn't married to someone who was employed steadily and wanted to stay married to me, I'd be out on the street. That's what happens to some disabled folks waiting for their soc. sec. cases. This is a *survival* issue, just as being a disabled fetus and escaping prenatal destruction and then entering the hospitable world one deserves is a survival issue, just as creating a complete social safety net for all people with disabilities and their families is a survival issue.

Current barriers are directly traceable back to the eugencis movement, which originated in the US and *then* spread to Germany. When Hitler was in jail, he avidly read *American* eugenicists. I've researched and written on the subject, and today's issues are direct descendants of historical ones.

The main difference bewteen now and then is that eugenics appears in the guise of personal choice and liberty rather than widescale social engineering--but the overlooked thing is this. It is a eugenically shaped society that creates the dilemma of "abortion or ELSE" for those pregnant with disabled fetuses.

During the early twentieth century, before disabilities could be detected prenatally as they are now, there were eugenic proposals that disabled babies be killed with the new technology of death penalty through electrocution. As if they were criminals. These infanticide proposals resurfaced in the 1970s and 80s--but then under a rubric of "parental choice"-- but luckily the Baby Doe regulations put a damper on them.

During the early 20th century uproar over eugenic infanticide, the great social work pioneer Jane Addams spoke out strongly against against it, as strongly as she spoke out against the death penalty and war, as strongly as she sought to alleviate the root causes of abortion. She said this to overwhelmed parents of disabled children--she sounds so much like the present-day disability rights movement (despite some of her outdated word usages):

"You think you have a child unlike other children; you are anxious that your neighbor not find it out; it makes you secretive; it makes you singularly sensitive; it places you and the normal children in your family in a curious relation to the rest of the community; but if you find out there are many other such children in your city and in...the United States, and that a whole concourse of people are studying to help these children, considering them not at all queer and outrageous, but simply a type of child which occurs from time to time and can be enormously helped, you come out of that particularly sensitive attitude and the whole family is lifted with you into a surprising degree of hopefulness and normality."

*This* is the sort of consciousness, in updated form, that will win and secure human rights for disabled people at all stages of life. Really, how is the use of prenatal tests to shut us out of our rightful places in the world compatible with such a vision?

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

Submitted by Marysia on April 17, 2009 - 1:35pm.

Congratulations! This thread has been Godwin'd! Yours is a particularly bad mistake, because Hitler actually outlawed abortion and shut down birth control clinics.

By some yard-sticks, Adolph Hitler might have been labeled as "pro-life". He was outspoken in his opposition to abortion for German women, seeing them simply as the breeders for the Aryan master race he envisioned. While abortion had been widespread in Germany prior to the rise of Nazism, Hitler issued a law which made the act of helping in an abortion a penal offense.

 

After promising in Mein Kampf to "to do away with the idea that what one does with one's own body is each individual's business," Hitler campaigned for an increased birth rate among German citizens, offering government loans to newlyweds, with abatements for each child produced.

[...]

However, Hitler's "pro-life" attitude did not extend to non-Aryan peoples, nor to Aryans deemed to be less useful in German society. He began his eugenics campaign by having the "imperfect" elements of German society-the mentally and physically handicapped-forcibly sterilized.

 [...]

How could a government justify two divergent policies on abortion? How is it that abortion could be prohibited for some and mandated for others? The answer is, sadly, quite simple. The government was not required to explain: the citizens of Germany allowed themselves to become the tool of Hitler's will. The people abrogated their rights and responsibilities as individual moral decision-makers and allowed their own choices to be supplanted with those of the Fuhrer. With this information, can the freedom of choice over abortion in the United States be blindly compared with the Holocaust of World War II. The answer is simply no.

[Source]

Submitted by Sayna on April 17, 2009 - 3:00pm.

Sayna,

I brought up Hitler's reading material *only* because many Americans think of eugenics as a Nazi invention, when in fact it was very much homegrown and it spread to other countries, especially Germany.  Edwin Black's book War on the Week among other sources makes this quite clear.

Americans often do not discern the legacy of  eugenics in the present because there is a great amnesia about the eugenic past.

I am *not* trying to say anything crude and rude like "prochoice equals Nazi."  So don't pin that on me. 

I am oldy-moldy and have probably known about this history you detail since before you were born!  

 Banning abortion for Aryans and forcing them on Jews, Poles, and other people Hitler deemed inferior had nothing to do with respect for unborn or any other kind of human lives.  Banning contraception for Aryans and not for the deemed-inferior groups didn't either.  It was all about the Nazi scheme for domination.

Anyone who is truly prolife or prochoice today is not about that at all.  I am simply pointing out that the US has a very much homegrown eugenic legacy that women and disabled fetuses are still very much up against today.

And by the way--if I remember correctly, you are vegetarian? So am I, as I think I have said before.  Well another myth about Hitler is that he was a vegetarian.  he dabbled sometimes in veg meals, for reasons of his health supposedly, not at all for reasons of concern about animals.  But he really wasn't a vegetarian--he eat meat a lot.  So that claim against vegetarianism can be put to rest too.

 A non-purveyor of Hitler myths,

Marysia

 

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

Submitted by Marysia on April 17, 2009 - 5:07pm.

Why bring up eugenics in general though, if not to compare abortion rights to an idea that most people deeply disagree with and consider evil? Why compare the choice to bring children into the world or not to genocide? It may not have been your motive to insult the pro-choice side, but your comparison sure made it seem that way!

I am oldy-moldy and have probably known about this history you detail since before you were born!

Ahhh, that sweet pro-life condescension. You can almost taste it.

Submitted by Sayna on April 18, 2009 - 2:32am.

Sayna, apologies, that was not my intent, to sound or to be condescending...Maybe if we were having a face to face discussion, it would be easier for us to understand and listen to the other.

As for the continuing relevance and effects of eugenics, both Progo35 and I address this in  post further on. 

 

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

Submitted by Marysia on April 18, 2009 - 10:49am.

You so thoroughly kick fundie ass, Sayna! I love you! :-P

Submitted by Emma on April 28, 2009 - 10:02am.

I have also done research indicating many of the similarities Marysia points out between today's climate of abortion based on handicap and what is now known as the eugenics movement. Like I've said elsewhere on this blog, people have prejudices, and the most effective way to justify prejudice is to re-cast it into some form of compassion or humanitarianism, which is one of the main things that abortion based on prenatal diagnosis and eugenics philosophy share. I would also like to reiterate that eugenics need not be imposed by the state. As Marysia points out, eugenics can take the form of a personal choice as well.

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 2:48pm.

As Marysia points out, eugenics can take the form of a personal choice as well.

This would include disabled people or people at risk for passing on genetic disorders who decide to use birth control or have a vasectomy/tubal ligation in order to not have children. Are they evil eugenecists? Are they oppressing themselves? Or are disabled people not allowed to make reproductive choices?

Submitted by Sayna on April 17, 2009 - 3:04pm.

This is where I was trying to go and failed. The fact that people make these decisions for what they deem to be humanitarian reasons (is it being 'evil' to not desire to pass on Tay-Sachs or cystic fibrosis?) may in its purest definition be 'eugenics' to some, but does it necessarily make the choice wrong?

Submitted by TheRealistMom on April 17, 2009 - 3:45pm.

In the US it was contraceptive type measures, such as sterilization, that were used for eugenics. Abortion was illegal.

Submitted by Anonymous on April 17, 2009 - 3:53pm.

 

This is all true. And although American eugenicists were divided on the question of what they called "lethal means"--the following practices, which *they* put under this rubric.

Some eugenicists openly, and some not so openly advocated abortion for eugenic purposes. Some performed abortions. 

Some advocated killing newborn babies at birth for eugenic purposes--and even did this openly, as documented in the book The Black Stork. 

Some proposed rounding up  "criminal elements" (read: poor and/or of color) in society and subjecting them to the gas chamber (which was originally invented to euthanize unwanted stray animals).

 This was all before anyone ever heard of Hitler or Nazis.  And it was in the good ole US of A.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

Submitted by Marysia on April 17, 2009 - 5:38pm.

Curious - The Black Stork documents illegal abortions?

Submitted by Anonymous on April 17, 2009 - 5:47pm.

and the use of contraception for eugenics too?

Submitted by Anonymous on April 17, 2009 - 5:48pm.

I have yet to see any proof for abortion being defined by them under a rubric that includes gas chambers....the quote below from the Black Stork, which is quoted below, did not put abortion in this particular rubric but instead put it under the different rubric of contraception and brain surgery.

Submitted by Anonymous on April 24, 2009 - 1:44pm.

 

 Anon-in this case you are including the Nazi eugenics program in our discussion of eugenics, as the Nazis did use the gas chambers, America did not. If we are going into the territory of Nazi Germany, coerced/forced abortion was used to eliminate disabled people. 

I hasten to remind you that this discussion is about the philosophy behind the eugenics movement. How the eugenic purpose of eliminating disabled people was carried out doesn't matter, it's the ideology behind such steps that is important.

 For instance: Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton University, believes that parents should be allowed to kill disabled children who they feel unable to care for or who they feel burden their family. When a woman has an abortion based on those same concerns, she is essentially buying into the same disability-as-burden, eugenic mindset as Singer, accept she is having an abortion, in which the fetus is not legally protected, whereas Singer would like to legalize disability-based euthanasia, affecting infants that currently have civil rights. Same reasons/philosophy about disabled people and their lives, different method. The thinking inherent in aborting a disabled fetus or killing a disabled infant based on their handicaps is the same, it's just that one is universally recognized as murder, whereas the other is not universally recognized as murder, and is currently an accepted medical practice. 

 

I am NOT suggesting that people here want to follow Singer's advice, I am using him as an example of common abortion based on disability reasoning carried over from the arena of reproductive rights to the area of infanticide.  Same philosophy, different method. That's what I'm getting at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 24, 2009 - 2:06pm.

I was talking specifically about the US here when I got the reply back regarding the American eugenicists and their 'rubric', with only a single source mentioned (Black Stork) that doesn't seem to pan out to support the rubric as mentioned. Above this sub-thread, Sayna has already documented how the Nazi's had restricted abortion and I've already heard elsewhere in the thread how you try to connect it philosophically, but I was only asking for the source for this American eugenicists rubric (as stated above) given it seems to be contradicted by the source given.

Submitted by Anonymous on April 24, 2009 - 4:54pm.

Sayna, sheesh...I am multiply disabled, the mother of someone with learning difficulties, and a disability rights advocate.  I believe that disabled people have as much right to have sex how they want with whom they as any other consenting adults.  And as much right to choose or not choose parenthood, through nonviolent/nonabortion means as any other human being.  I have spoken out for these rights.

Disabled people are constantly bombarded with cultural messages that we are asexual and incompetent to be parents.  In the not too distant past, *in this very country*, as part of eugenics we were sexually segregated in inhumanly run institutions and forcibly sterilized in large numbers.  Especially when we were poor and/or people of color.

Now, a disabled person might make their decision not to seek conception based on self-hatred stemming from these internalized prejudices.  That doesn't mean they're an "evil eugenicist."  But their decision is definitely and unfortunately shaped by the legacy of eugenics. 

I am all for sex education that encourages everyone, disabled and non-disabled alike, white folks and people of color, straight and LGBT, to make decisions from a position of self- and other- love and respect rather than internalized prejudices of any sort.

Now, from a position of self- and other- love, a disabled person may very well still decide to contracept and not have children, or more children.  I know because I have been that person, surprise!  After going through one real roller-coaster of a very high risk pregnancy, I decided *not* that I was eugenically unfit to repoduce further or unfit to be a mother.  But that due to the specific disabilities I have, I did not want again to incur the risks myself or expose any unborn child I might conceive to them, if it could at all be avoided.  So I had a tubal ligation when I was 27 years old.  It was not a decision based on eugenics.

 

 

Nonviolent Choice Directory, http://www.nonviolentchoice.blogspot.com

Submitted by Marysia on April 17, 2009 - 5:28pm.

[...]due to the specific disabilities I have, I did not want again to incur the risks myself or expose any unborn child I might conceive to them, if it could at all be avoided. So I had a tubal ligation when I was 27 years old. It was not a decision based on eugenics.

You were comparing a person's choice not to have a disabled child to eugenics. I and others in this thread have pointed out that it's probably more of a will not to bring a life into the world that will suffer and that they cannot care for. Did you happen to dig your head out of the sand to think for one moment that people just don't want to pass on a genetic disorder? Or that they might have good intentions? Why is it akin to eugenics when they choose not to have kids but not when you do?

 

I'm not saying and I have never said that life isn't worth living disabled, or that disabled people are inherently miserable. It's just that some people--like yourself--would rather not bring a child into the world with a severe disability. They don't want to have a child just to see him/her struggle and have themselves constantly struggle to support him/her.

Submitted by Sayna on April 18, 2009 - 2:42am.

Sanya,

When you use the example of a person with a disability or genetic disorder getting sterilized or using birth control in order to not pass those disorders on, you assume that disabled people view their "disorders" as something bad that they wouldn't want to pass on; that we don't want to bring children into the world, and that we are eager to go and get sterilized. How about the fact that even in this day and age, disabled people are often regarded as non-sexual creatures who do not have erotic interests? This is a serious problem.

Your own example indicates a belief that getting sterilized or having an abortion if one is disabled is the moral thing to do, and that not doing so is backward or immoral. It is important to remember that eugenics is a philosophy, not just a science. The idea that disabled people are better off not born is an idea that drove the eugenics movement.

Lastly, Sanya, you intentionally linked the word "evil" to those disabled people who, you presume, would like to go an get themselves sterilized so as not to beget more people like themselves. Neither I nor Marysia have said anything about people being evil. Indeed, the very thing that makes these ideas so attractive is that they seem to make sense on the surface, so that good people embrace them, thinking that they are doing the right thing.

Please do not disregard the concerns of disability activists by citing "Goodman's Law." It indicates a lack of training in diversity issues related to disability and an unwillingness to acknowledge any connection between a current practice and those of people or policies that we now recognize as wrong. It is also not a law, but a way of backing out of an argument when one cannot think of anything better to say.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 5:30pm.

you assume that disabled people view their "disorders" as something bad that they wouldn't want to pass on; that we don't want to bring children into the world, and that we are eager to go and get sterilized.

I said absolutely nothing of the sort. You and Marysia have missed my point entirely. It's almost like you're trying to turn it around on me and say that I'm insulting disabled people. It's almost as though you are intentionally changing the subject and ignoring what I said in order to sidetrack the conversation and make me look like the bad guy.

 

I know very well that the majority of disabled people don't see their disabilities as bad or horrible. They're living with them and coping just fine. What I'm getting at is that it seemed you and Marysia were painting them as self-hating eugenecists if they decided not to have children. You both tried to paint the decision not to have a disabled child as invalid and wrong. Some people--and this includes people of all levels of physical and mental ability--siimply do not want to have children. Some people can't cope with a special-needs child or don't want to pass on something that they know causes great suffering. This doesn't make them self-loathing or bad.

Your own example indicates a belief that getting sterilized or having an abortion if one is disabled is the moral thing to do, and that not doing so is backward or immoral.

Nonsense.

 

I'd use a stronger word than that, but I would like to keep the conversation civil. I did not say a single thing like that. Being pro-choice, I believe that the decision is best left to the individual. Some people want children, others don't. Some people could care for a special needs child, others couldn't. I don't believe in forcing someone either way.

Lastly, Sanya, you intentionally linked the word "evil" to those disabled people who, you presume, would like to go an get themselves sterilized so as not to beget more people like themselves. Neither I nor Marysia have said anything about people being evil.

No, you've opted for the much more subtle method of comparing them to Hitler.

Please do not disregard the concerns of disability activists by citing "Goodman's Law."

Protip: You can at least make it look like you've paid attention to your opponent's posts and links by taking the time to spell things out correctly. My name would be a great place to start.

It is also not a law, but a way of backing out of an argument when one cannot think of anything better to say.

Nazi comparisons? Exactly! So stop making them and apologize when you're called out on them.

Submitted by Sayna on April 18, 2009 - 3:00am.

I also wanted to say that I will get back in a bit with some of my research on eugenics for everyone's consideration, but I need some time to put it together.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 5:37pm.

Anon-look for yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Stork-Eugenics-Defective-American/dp/0195135...

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 6:14pm.

P.S. Abortions have been legal for medical reasons in various developed countries, including the US, since the 19th century, so abortions performed by doctors for eugenic purposes, either in the US or elsewhere, were not done illegally, because the law made an exception for those cases, or such cases were ignored by law enforcement, depending on the situations. Yes, the black stork does document sterilization and the use of contraception in the US for eugenic purposes, as do many other books and websites. Margaret Sanger herself supported eugenics, as you must know.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 6:16pm.

Health and life exceptions yes...but pre-natal diagnostics back then?

Submitted by Anonymous on April 17, 2009 - 6:21pm.

No, abortions were performed on people who had or were suspected to have a disorder or condition that could be genetically inherited. So, they didn't know whether or not the fetus in question was disabled, they did it on the suspicion that it was.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 6:32pm.

Do you have a source that abortion was implemented as a eugenic measure in the US?

Submitted by Anonymous on April 17, 2009 - 6:38pm.

Give me some time to access my research and I'll see what I can come up with.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 6:40pm.

Sure, I know this is an important topic to you as I've been on another blog with you.

I did a search in the Black Stork and, perhaps I missed it, but couldn't whats laid out above.

I did find some references to abortion such as how one of the doctors at the time thought birth control, abortion, sterilization and brain surgery were all preferable to killing.

Submitted by Anonymous on April 17, 2009 - 6:47pm.

Right, that quote refers to Dr. Haiselden, who refused to operate/presurred a woman to withhold medical treatment from her baby because it had obvious disabilities, although the baby's life could have been saved with the surgery. The actual quote appears on pg. 84 and reads, "Haiselden considered birth control, sterilzation, abortion, even brain surgery as preferable to killing. But unlike most earlier eugenic publicists, Haiselden promoted the death of defectives as a necessary back up measure at least until better methods were more widely adopted." Ie, Haiselden would have supported legalizing abortion so that "defective" women would abort their "defective" fetuses that would develop into "defective" children. If he were around today, he would certainly support/be happy about women ending pregnancies today when they learn that the fetus they are carrying is disabled in some way.
More later...
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 7:17pm.

Thanks Progo35....I'm not going to debate you on what he would or would not believe today on abortion, birth control, brain surgery, etc....I just didn't find support for the claims as they were already made in the other posts above.

Submitted by Anonymous on April 17, 2009 - 9:15pm.

I just want to say that opposition to terminating a pregnancy based on special needs does not constitute a lack of sympathy for the difficulties that parents of special needs children encounter. Yet, I am firmly convinced that the pain and anguish experienced by disabled people and their families is primarily caused by social prejudice and mistreatment because of it, not the disability itself. And, such terminations only feed into and validate that problem, they don't alleviate it.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 8:51pm.

Anon-

I wasn't necessarily intending for that quote to by my answer to your question about abortion as a tool of eugenics, I was just responding to the quote you cited. I'll have to do some more research and then post again.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 17, 2009 - 9:41pm.

Point taken. Although I agree with RealistMom I also appreciate some of your advocacy…I sent you a note on youtube.

Submitted by Anonymous on April 17, 2009 - 9:56pm.

and just to make myself clear...its not just about whether it was an accepted tool but about the rubric as defined above that I didn't find support for. The quote from the book actually seems to contradict the way the rubric was framed above regarding abortion.

Submitted by Anonymous on April 18, 2009 - 12:26pm.

Eugenic measures by the state included marriage laws to restrict passing on traits. Sounds like eugenics is getting defined broadly above to incorporate the personal level where it would also include picking ones mate based upon characteristics one finds attractive versus unattractive (e.g. the traits, whether conscious or subconscious, that we desire for our children).

Submitted by Anonymous on April 18, 2009 - 9:23am.

This is going to be in some ways oversimplifying my viewpoint, and in some ways rambling, so I'm asking some indulgence here for everyone who has been participating and making thought provoking posts. (First cup of coffee again!)

The difference to me between "eugenics" and "personal choice" (and remember, this is a personal opinion, not a definition) is the difference between the doctor giving the woman accurate information about the nature of the fetus' disability to include not only the risk factors and prognosis but also the positives (ie, their chances for living a happy life, I know that sounds trite but I'm having a hard time coming up with a better phrasing), and saying, "Your potential child has this wrong with them. You should abort." Choice gives people all of the options, shows them current advocacy and medical treatments, encourages research, and provides support for whatever option the woman chooses. Eugenics takes us back to the times of denying medical care to infants that might survive with assistance and telling new parents to shunt their developmentally disabled infant into an institution and tell people it was stillborn.

Submitted by TheRealistMom on April 18, 2009 - 11:54am.

I too agree with this and think its important to give all the information including the positives. And most would agree with the advocacy done by disability rights groups and progo35 on behalf of accommodation.

Submitted by Anonymous on April 21, 2009 - 12:16pm.

I think realist mom gets closet to understanding what I'm saying about eugenics, prejudice, etc. Like Marysia and I have pointed out, eugenics is a philosophy, not just a state policy that started around the 1920s. It is quite possible to internalize the outlook that is common to eugenics:"my child would be better of not coming into the world than coming into the world disabled" without it being required. Unfortunately, the majority of women facing a special needs diagnosis experience the very thing that realistmom points out as being bad:"your potential child has this wrong with them. You should abort." Very few doctors actually remain neutral in delivering this news to prospective parents. This is why parents of disabled children have formed support groups and advertised their availability for parents facing this diagnosis. Prospective parents even have the choice of visiting a family with a disabled child and seeing the child themselves when making a decision about whether to continue a preganancy. But, strangly, even some pro choice people have spoken out against these groups because they fear that this will interfere with choice. But, these parents are making themselves available on a voluntary basis, no one is forced to participate in such a program. What I would like to see is more pro choice people taking it upon themselves to truly educate people about disability as a part of normal human life and working against biased counseling that encourages women to abort in these situations. Hopefully, such counseling would truly give such women the opportunity to consider their own attitudes toward disability, what they've heard about disabilities, and how prepared they really are to raise a special child. Such counseling need not pressure women not to abort, either, it can be neutral and encourage people to understand disability within the framework of our culture and from a more personal standpoint than just reading about it or listening to what their doctor, who may not have experience with disabled people, has to say.

Sayna-I will not apologize for discussing the subject of eugenics in a civil, open manner, just because the subject makes you uncomfortable. Everyone/every group alive has fore bearers who did unattractive things, and you/the pro choice movement are no different. Like I've said before, everyone alive is subject to prejudice, whether they intend to be or not. Unfortunately, there is a connection between the family planning/abortion rights movement and eugenics, just as there is a connection between some capitalist theory and eugenics. An example of this is the philosophy expressed by Thomas Mathus, an English social scientist/philosopher who believed that people who couldn't get ahead on their own in life were trash. Every movement, nation, and people group has skeletons in it's closet. We all have to be cautious about former wrongs being repeated via our actions, and a willingness to examine one's actions in light of history is the mark of a truly courageous individual or movement.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 18, 2009 - 10:48pm.

It is quite possible to internalize the outlook that is common to eugenics:"my child would be better of not coming into the world than coming into the world disabled" without it being required.

But why is that wrong? It would be better for any potential child I might have right now to not be born at all and I don't have a lot of bad or difficult things going on in my life. Why can't someone just acknowledge that there are some situations where it's better off to just not have a child? If you're arguing that "I shouldn't have a child" is a bad attitude and the problem, why limit it to abortion? People who use get sterilized, use contraception and/or don't have sex are doing the exact same thing. You're being awfully selective. And again, you've failed to explain why such an attitude is bad. Both of you are edging awfully close to that part of Godwin's Law described as "(unpopular people) believed in (idea), therefore it is WRONG!"

What I would like to see is more pro choice people taking it upon themselves to truly educate people about disability as a part of normal human life and working against biased counseling that encourages women to abort in these situations.

You act like there isn't a single disabled person in the world who is pro-choice. The two are not mutually exclusive. As we've been trying to explain to the pro-life side for years, there's a reason why we call ourselves pro-choice. We really do believe that the decision is best left to the woman herself. Of course biased counselling is wrong! You act like pro-choicers would disagree with that.

Sayna-I will not apologize for discussing the subject of eugenics in a civil, open manner, just because the subject makes you uncomfortable.

I swear sometimes I'm talking to a brick wall.

 

It's not that it makes me uncomfortable, it's that I'm questioning the relevence of bringing it up in the first place. You guys seem reeeally focused on comparing abortion to eugenics but tend to shy away from the fact that it was mainly contraception and sterilization abused by eugenecists.

Everyone/every group alive has fore bearers who did unattractive things, and you/the pro choice movement are no different. Like I've said before, everyone alive is subject to prejudice, whether they intend to be or not. Unfortunately, there is a connection between the family planning/abortion rights movement and eugenics, just as there is a connection between some capitalist theory and eugenics.

Again: What point are you trying to make by comparing the reproductive rights movement to eugenics? All I'm seeing is an attempt to demonize pro-choice people. Not only have you twisted my words in an attempt to make me look insensitive--which seems to be a favorite tactic since I saw you do it to colleen too--you've ignored my questions. You guys tried to make it sound like I go around pushing people out of their wheelchairs or something. The point I was trying to get accross to you is that disabled people should have the same reproductive rights as everyone else and not be shamed or compared to Nazis just because they don't want to have kids.

 

Frankly, your post is coming across as "Just a reminder, some eugenecists believed abortion should be legal and therefore they represent the modern pro-choice movment. Just a reminder. Don't get mad but some bad apples were pro-choice too!" What is the point in that if not to vilify us?

 

I'm not seeing the similarities between "women should be in control of their own bodies" and "we need to breed more superior/less inferior people". Did you guys miss the memo or can you just not get the fact that the reproductive rights movement is about letting people choose for themselves whether or not to have children.

Submitted by Sayna on April 19, 2009 - 2:04am.

Sayna-I think it's you who who not understand our point. You are obviously very, very angry at us for bringing this topic up at all, and I would encourage you to do some research on the philosophies behind the eugenic movement before yelling at us with abandon. All you need to do is to look at a history book to know that the FOUNDER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD, Margaret Sanger, was an ardent supporter of eugenics. Moreover, what Marysia and I are getting at here is the PHILOSOPHY behind eugenics, not how one implements it. We are arguing that some contemporary pro choice people ascribe to the philosophy of "some people are better of not born" that was behind eugenics.

Submitted by Progo35 on April 19, 2009 - 10:12am.

All you need to do is to look at a history book to know that the FOUNDER OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD, Margaret Sanger, was an ardent supporter of eugenics.

Ah, there it is. I was wondering when this would come up. I see this one so often that I have a link to an essay about it. It's always best to read the whole thing, but here are a few excerpts:

Well, it’s true that Margaret Sanger held these terrible beliefs. But it’s important to think about what the anti-choicers are trying to prove when they point this out. While many don’t state them outright (it’s easier to hide the flaws in your logic when you leave your conclusion unstated), there are 2 conclusions that they are usually trying to get people to draw. The first is that Planned Parenthood is an inherently racist organization that is trying to wipe out the African American population. The second is that the pro-choice ideals that Sanger held – the belief in the right of women to access contraception and abortion – must be wrong.

[...]

Let’s take the second of these conclusions first. According to this anti-choice argument, because Sanger was wrong about eugenics (and I mean really wrong), the rest of her beliefs must be wrong as well. Particularly her beliefs about birth control and abortion. Once the argument is clearly laid out, it should be immediately apparent how fallacious it is. Buddha was a sexist, therefore everything Buddha says must be wrong. But that’s just silly. People have both good and bad beliefs, but the presence of bad beliefs does not somehow magically poison all the other beliefs. Ghandi was a racist. Does that mean that everything he had to say about peace and harmony and passive resistance was wrong?

[...]

Just because the founder of an organization had a certain belief does not mean that the organization itself subscribes to it. The fact that the founder of PP believed in eugenics does not mean that PP believes in eugenics. To show that you will have to provide independent evidence.

I hate to copypaste, but this debunks it so well.

Submitted by Sayna on April 19, 2009 - 8:43pm.

Please see my most recent reply on the eugenics/pro choice discussion below:

Submitted by Progo35 on April 19, 2009 - 9:32pm.

"While many don’t state them outright (it’s easier to hide the flaws in your logic when you leave your conclusion unstated), there are 2 conclusions that they are usually trying to get people to draw. The first is that Planned Parenthood is an inherently racist organization that is trying to wipe out the African American population. The second is that the pro-choice ideals that Sanger held – the belief in the right of women to access contraception and abortion – must be wrong."

 

Once again, there appears to be a significant miscommnunication between you, Marysia and myself about what Marysia and I are trying to say about the connection beteen abortion based on disablity and eugenics. I will try to elucidate what we(or more appropriately, I) am saying about this connection:

First of all, the warning Marysia and I are giving about abortion based on disability is not exclusive to the pro life movement. Many disablity advocacy groups, such as ADAPT and Not Dead Yet are pro choice yet discourage termination on the basis of a handicap. I am taking a similar position in discouraging termination based on fetal handicap.

 

My point in bringing up Sanger is not to argue against abortion, contraception, or voluntary sterilization in themselves, but to give a specific example of how the good side of pro choice philosophy-empowering people to make their own decisions-can be twisted to support bad philosophies or actions, in this case, encouraging the view that women should, or are doing some good (rather than say, neutral), when they abort a disabled fetus, encouraging disabled people to get sterilized and generally feeding into the "better not born than disabled" mentality that continues to permeate society and spearheaded the Modern eugenics movement.

 

Obviously, someone doing something bad doesn't negate anything good that they ever did or besmirch her followers automatically, but when that bad thing begins to resurface, it is up to responsible, caring people on both sides of the abortion debate to ensure that it does not thwart appreciation for human diversity and rights.
So, yes,your essay is correct, but this discussion is really about termination, birth control and sterilization because of disability, not about the acceptability of those things in themselves, so the essay only establishes an argument for why someone would be pro choice despite Margaret Sanger's flaws. It doesn't make an argument in regard to termination based on disability, which is what Marysia and I have been getting at. The essay you site doesn't consider this discussion's entire context, as I am arguing that termination based on fetal handicap is wrong/prejudiced/tragic, not that abortion or being pro choice is wrong, at least in this discussion.

"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 19, 2009 - 9:27pm.

Eugenics (along with overt racism) was a very popular notion prior to WW2. These days the only folks who embrace such old fashioned notions are racist, misogynistic republicans. Indeed, Rep. John LaBruzzo, R-Metairie (who is a member of the Louisiana legislature) is trying to gain support for a bill authorizing the state of Louisiana to offer low income women $1000 to have their tubes tied. But, see, John LaBruzza, like most racists, is a 'pro-life' very conservative Republican. He also wants to require obligatory drug testing for women receiving TANF money.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/011244.html
Perhaps if Progo stopped witch hunting and lying about what women here are saying and did some research on her own she would be better able to grasp present day political realities.
Louisiana is a very Catholic state. One wonders why the Bishops aren't speaking out against this conservative piece of crap and threatening to refuse communion to the men and women who vote for him. That Catholic hierarchy never fails to disappoint.

Submitted by colleen on April 19, 2009 - 9:39pm.

See response below:

Submitted by Progo35 on April 19, 2009 - 10:28pm.

Coleen-the situation you cite w/representative LaBurzza is terrible and, as you point out, is a shameful example of eugenic thinking alive and well today. The fact that eugenic, abelist, racist, and classist policies percolate in the ranks of both parties cannot be emphasized enough. By elucidating concerns about a connection between the current 90 percent abortion rate for down syndrome fetuses and the eugenics movement, I am not attempting to insinuate that ableist or post-eugenic thinking is unique to some within the pro choice movement. There are many tragic examples of representatives on both sides of the abortion debate violating their core pro life and pro choice principles.
That being said, you could have brought that up without accusing people of lying and spewing hatred toward the Catholic Church, which, like every other group or movement, has skeletons in it's closet. The point of having these discussions(at least in my view)is to attempt to come up with solutions to the matter at hand, and, if not, at least to make each other think.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Submitted by Progo35 on April 19, 2009 - 10:29pm.