Aborting because of mild disability

bofish

New member
`London suggested is start this thread...but I want to keep it from getting too heated. I brought up the issue of pro-choice activists being unwilling to discuss the link between selective abortion and disability.

My personal opinion is this: I am against genetic testing.I do not believe that a couple who desires a baby should chose that baby based on ableness nor gender. Andrew Solomon makes the compelling case that if "gayness" or transgender were detected in fetuses, many of those would also be aborted.

I also believe abortion should be legal. I also am not totally pro-choice in the way that I believed a woman should have an abortion for any reason. On the other hand, each situation is different. Fetuses with what I would call manageable, often asthetic disbailities: glaqcoma, deafness, more than one finger, "hair lip" or dwarfism are prone to be abortede

I don't see the abortion as the problem, per se, I see societies compulsive fixation on the able-bodied as the issue.

I don't knows if anyone is open to discussion, maybe London will chime in.abo
 
Last edited:
I'm never going to give birth so this is theoretical for me. It's something I've thought about a lot, however.

I decided awhile ago that I would consider an abortion in the case of a fetus with severe intellectual disabilities. A physical disability but with full mental capabilities would not be enough for me to have an abortion. I've known multiple people with blindness, deafness, need a wheelchair, no legs below the knee, or other physical impairment and they get along just fine. Intellect is important to me and, while I am not easy in my mind about this, it would have bothered me immensely to raise a child that could never grow intellectually, or develop into an adult mentally.

What would I do about the gray areas? Like Down Syndrome where a full life is possible, even if complete intellectual abilities are not? I really don't know.

I also know that people who are pro-choice have to live with aspects of abortion that make them really uncomfortable. I support women's right to choose - even when that choice is not the one I would make, and it disturbs me. I hate that people regularly abort female fetuses in many countries. It bothers me when people abort for minor physical issues or even major ones but where a full life is entirely possible. (I don't worry about people aborting gay babies because there is no homosexual gene.) But that's the nature of abortion. I have to acknowledge that some would make decisions I hate, and I need to support those decisions. A relative brought a fetus to term that would never develop a brain. This is not the decision I would have made. But it was not mine to make and I support it, even as I struggle to understand why.
 
My opinions

I am pro-choice,
because I don't believe the government has any place in deciding what is best for a woman and her body in regards to medical issues.

On a personal level, due to having experienced having an abortion and the afteraffects; I am against abortion and would counsel most people towards adoption or keeping the baby.

BUT-I don't think that it should be regulated by law.

ESPECIALLY because my priority is the well-being of the child AND mother. A child brought into the world and raised in an abusive environment-isn't benefiting from a law that doesn't allow abortion.

Also; if it were MY daughter; I would prefer she be speaking with a professional medical person about her needs, issues, concerns, fears etc; not going down a back alley.
While I would like to believe that my children would come to be-and know that they COULD come to me; I know that many children can not go to their parents and back alley abortions are the reality when the law makes abortion illegal.
 
If the Childs disability would not make them a burden to my normal children then I would not abort.

But I would not want to saddle my children with responsibility they did not ask for. I am not going to live . It is hard enough to make your own way in life let alone being responsible for someone who is dependent forever. I would not want a child deemed ward of the state or institutionalized.

So if there was no chance of them being able to live an independent life. Then yes I would abort. There are very very few home willing to adopt a special needs child.
 
As someone who works with people with developmental/intellectual disabilities, I find it interesting that people think "average" (I refuse to use the term "normal" here) intelligence are the only ones able to have a full life.

I work with multiple adults who are significantly below average intellectually. Each of them has a distinct personality, varying interests in music and television and movies and jokes and games, they love to hug or high five or kiss your forehead to show their appreciation and love even when they can't/won't use words. They are amazing, and I love them as much as I love my family. They achieve new things all the time, and while the achievements may not be the same as the ones I am working towards, they are still impressive and joyful times and the pride and joy is visible in their demeanor.

It breaks my heart that so many of these wonderful people aren't born because people find them a burden.

On the actual topic, though... I 100% support a woman's right to choose, for any reason. For me personally, I would not and could not abort unless it was a case of either me or the baby being almost sure to die in a painful way. Obviously, I believe even people with sets of different abilities and intellectual levels can lead fulfilling lives, so in general a disability would not be a reason for me to seek an abortion.
 
I am pro choice. I've had two abortions myself and never once felt regret. I knew, at 19, that I would never want to be a mother. I was raised in poverty and suffered because of it, and was just beginning to experience life, and my sexuality, on my own terms at that time. I had no monetary means, nor any desire, to raise a kid. Is that a better reason than if a genetic test shows something physical or mental that I felt would make my offspring's life (and mine) very difficult? Dunno, but I feel that a woman's personal decision should not be questioned by anyone else. For millenia, women used whatever birth control method they had available at the time, and abortions were one of their choices. It's only been since organized religion deemed it a sin, and moreso in "modern" times when the medical profession became male-dominated and midwives and women were no longer respected as authorities on female bodies, that a woman's choice to abort or not came into question by larger society.
 
Last edited:
Hypothetical: A pregnant woman finds out, through genetic testing, that her child will have a disability of some kind, one that she is not willing to endure as a parent. Her options, as she sees them: abortion or adoption.

Reality: Children with disabilities are rarely selected for adoption. People don't want the added expense, they don't want to take the time, they don't want to have a child who's "different." Whether or not I think this is morally sound, it's the way things are. You have to deal in the real world, not the world you wish you lived in.

Hypothetical woman's child, if born, will most likely spend her childhood institutionalized in a state hospital or group home. Her physical needs will be met, barely, and her emotional and intellectual needs will likely be neglected. State homes are not renowned for their spectacular care of people with special needs.

I'm pro-choice because I believe every child has the right to be wanted.
 
Yes I agree, SC.

As a general principle, I am in favor of letting the mother choose to abort or not to abort. But the sooner in the pregnancy the better, as a rule of thumb. I find the concept of late-term abortion disturbing at best, and in general I hope to see better technology soon that will increasingly enable abortions that don't cause suffering to the child.

I've noticed that all questions about abortion come without absolutes. There is no way to precisely define "too late in the pregnancy," for example. There is no way to precisely define "suffering too severe for the child." And I can't fathom where one would draw the line between "able enough" and "too disabled."

If she knew how crippled he'd be, and if we assume she had a choice, did Stephen Hawking's mother choose well in carrying her son to term? Well, anyone would say yes, of course, obviously, but what if she'd had no idea what kind of I.Q. he'd have, and what if she'd had reason to believe he'd be mentally handicapped? Then carrying him to term would be a leap of faith, and the high intelligence he proved to have would be a bonus in light of the prenatal expectations.

With that case in mind, how does one decide what quality of life is too low for a child to have to face? From what little I know of Stephen Hawking, it seems to me that he is glad he was born and wouldn't have it any other way. And additionally, a mentally-handicapped child isn't doomed to an unhappy life either, as AlwaysGrowing pointed out.

We keep pets that (we think) have well under average human intelligence, and don't consider their "handicaps" (their inability to speak English for example) to be reason they can't have a joyful life with us -- bringing us joy, and receiving joy from us. In fact lots of people keep houseplants which can't even move or care for themselves beyond processing sunlight and minerals -- just because we like the life that living things bring to our home.

In spite of all that, I imagine that if I was a woman and pregnant with a child who I knew would almost certainly be born with so many internal/external deformations as to make it very challenging for that child to stay alive, I would probably abort. If I knew my child would be somewhere in the ballpark of that level of internal/external deformations, I'd be strongly tempted to abort -- but I don't know how anyone can make such a weighty decision based on some one-size-fits-all standard. I think you have to be in the situation, and even use some intuition in deciding. Very difficult.

A really challenging, troubling story about these kinds of decisions can be found in the following article: http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2013/03/05/surrogate-mom-refuses-to-abort-fetus-with-birth-defects/

If we had a special time machine that allowed us to visit an alternate future in which a "badly" (What constitutes "badly?") disabled child had been carried to term and lived at least five or ten years, we could ask that child if xe was glad to have been born in spite if hir disabilities. How many kids, honestly, even badly-disabled kids, would say they wish they'd never been born? Well we all say that at certain really awful points in our lives -- but how many of us really, consistently feel that way? Not many, I bet.

Shoot, even if you knew your child was merely going to be gay, you could rationalize an abortion by saying, "This child will go through life as a social pariah. It would be better to spare hir the angst, anguish, and lonesomeness xe'd have to endure for hir orientation. If this was more of a gay-accepting world then I'd carry hir to term." Ah, if only we had that special time machine and could interview the child-if-xe'd-been-born. Then we could get hir thoughts, feelings, and state of consent. But most of us obviously agree that you'd carry a "gay child" to term -- a life of social persecution notwithstanding.

Essentially, an abortion -- and indeed, the choice to carry to term as well -- is an attempt to predict the future. It is a prediction that every pregnant woman has to make, if she has any choice at all about aborting. Substantial risk of life to mother and/or child perhaps makes the choice more obvious. And then there's pregnancy by rape which is rather off-topic here but I mention it just to further illustrate how complicated the whole issue of abortion is.

They say women tend to be better at knowing their own hearts than men. I don't know if that's true, but it'd certainly be an appropriate advantage in making tough decisions about one's unborn child. You can't carve things down to one-size-fits-all rules, so you have to guess with the help of your heart! Is there any other way? None that I can see.
 
I mentioned stats because people against abortion lie about them. Eg extra fingers run in families. People know their kid will have them. Often these cosmetic abnormalities point to other issues. Ears and kidneys, face and heart. Plus syndromes like Downs and Turners have particular markers. So say I had a termination of a fetus with severe heart problems and a cleft lip, anti abortion campaigner only mentions cleft lip.

Genetic testing helps us save babies. A baby with Downs might not be able to sustain its life at birth. If we know it has Downs and some idea of complications, we can prepare to give it the best chance.

Not everyone can parent a disabled kid. It takes work. My son is seven, doesn't sleep alone, can't wipe his bum, can't dress himself. Loads of love and joy. Not much sleep. Also had to put my career on hold. Not in the plan. I got a months notice that he would be prem thus small chance of hypoxic brain injury and/or CP. That bit of notice is why when two years later he was diagnosed with autism, i had dealt with .appreciating him being alive but imperfect.
 
Stephen Hawking is only physically disabled. He has MND.
 
Oh absolutely. Hawking's mind could run circles around my feeble little intellect. His body may be disabled but that hasn't stopped him from revolutionizing what we know about the Universe. He rocks, in my primitive volcabulary.
 
I'm not a mind reader so of course I can't be certain, but I suspect that people who choose to abort due to disability usually do it more because they don't feel capable of raising the child themselves, and don't want the guilt of putting them in the system. There's nothing unethical about knowing your limitations and choosing to live within them. People who think in terms of "what's best for the child" are already thinking about their child, the birth being taken for granted. Anyone who prioritizes what's right for another person is more likely to put the child's needs above their own and give them the best chance at life possible.

Lots of assumptions and generalizations there, but just my $0.02 worth of intuition.
 
Hawking led a normal life well into his 20s.
 
Last edited:
Well I kind of use Hawking as a thought experiment. "What if his mother could have known what his life would be like -- without knowing of the rich accolades he'd receive from the academic world." If she knew that he'd start to increasingly languish physically as an adult, would she consider sparing him of that hardship by forgoing his birth? and what if the disease he'd have was going to start crippling him well before adulthood? What if it'd start crippling him before he was even born? Without knowing what a genius he'd also turn out to be, and how much he'd contribute to Science, how would a mother make the call, and if she aborted, would she (and the whole world) wonder what we had all missed out on?

Departing well beyond the realms of what I could call a "Hawking experiment," let's say a mother could see into the future of her unborn child and know that at the age of three, a car accident would take both of hir legs, both eyes, and horribly disfigure hir (for life)? Worse yet, what if this tragedy was to happen when xe was ten or twelve, well old enough to have longing memories of what it was like "to be whole?" If the only way to spare that child of that tragic destiny was to forgo giving birth and the mother could somehow know this, would abortion become a rational option?

How many of us have seen the 1985 film "Mask" (Cher, Sam Elliot, Eric Stoltz)? The main character (Roy L. "Rocky" Dennis) has craniodiaphyseal dysplasia which worsens as he gets older. It not only makes his face shocking to the casual observer, it also gives him terrible migraines and such (and I think the severity and frequency of the pain he suffers increases over the years as well). He died young. If a woman was pregnant with such a child, and knew what sort of physical and emotional (social stigma) pain he'd have to face, would she be justified in aborting to spare the child? Having watched the movie, of course, we see Rocky as a kid who loved life, faced his condition bravely, and moved and inspired those who loved and surrounded him. The point is, knowing you're going to have a kid who's going to face terrible obstacles in hir life, doesn't make the choice to abort or not so simple.

Of course SchrodingersCat is quite right in saying that a pregnant woman must take into account her own limitations, and if she's not able to raise the afflicted child, who will raise the child and how will that affect the quality of life that child can live?

Many of these questions stray from the original topic of, "What if it's a child who'll be born (mildly?) (severely?) disabled," but I think they are related. The choice to go through with a pregnancy with any child who is "doomed" to face much hardship in life is a choice of incalculable complexity. If aborted, who knows what suffering a child might be spared? but if carried to term, who knows what richness that same child might experience and share with and in the world? We cannot pretend to be certain to know. Again we need that alternate-future time machine, to interview the child in the was-born future and get hir thoughts on the matter. Alas that consent can't be had from an unborn child, yea or nay.
 
the fetus..

I guess I respect women who abort because they know their limitations. Taking care of a child is grueling and a disabled child, more so.

I do question women who abort based on who the baby will be versus what their limitations are. Meaning many women abort because they are not happy with the child's condition. This extends far, far beyond conditions that need constant care.

London, to my knowledge, fetuses with Downs do not have testing so the parents will be prepared. Doctors test for Downs because they assume people will abort. I read 85-90% of Downs fetuses are aborted. A friend just tested positive for Downs and her doctor was shocked that she would not abort. I heard this story again and again. She they decided to adopt the baby out. There are organizations specifically for babies with Downs. She had her choice on many, and ultimately kept the baby.

I don't think the problem is with abortion, per se. I think it's ableist attitudes that lead to these abortions and the arguments for abortion I have read are that a woman should be not critized no matter what. But, what if a woman got pregnant by a Japenese man and was racist? Would it be unfair to discuss that?
I don't see much difference between that and fetuses with mild disabilities.
 
That is nonsense. The rationale for definitive chromosome testing is to enable the parents to make informed decisions about all aspects of the pregnancy, that includes whether to continue the pregnancy but also where and how to give birth with what professionals present.

I've cared for women who have had aborted for fetal anomaly and those who have for social reasons. The former has always been like caring for someone who has had a stillbirth and lost a wanted child. There is guilt, feeling useless, grieving, holding the baby, all that.
 
Articles on Downs

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/09/us/09down.html?pagewanted=all

This is actually a positive article : http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...e-still-being-born-with-down-syndrome/254869/

This is my understanding of Downs. It has gone through a period where people are expected to abort by their doctors. Even my friend whose son was born 10 months ago went through this experience. There are many similar stories relayed in Andrew Solomon's Far From the Tree. I specifically remember one story about the doctor telling a woman with a newborn "Your child is a magaloid!" I am not arguing that no families want to prepare for early intervention. However, until very recently, Downs has been thought of a think that should be "wiped out" through abortion. This is reflected in the 80-90% abortion rate. However, as the second article says because public perception is changing, the abortion rate is changing.

Here's another : http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/dec/02/health.medicineandhealth
 
Last edited:
But, what if a woman got pregnant by a Japenese man and was racist? Would it be unfair to discuss that?

How would that happen, exactly? If she's racist against Japanese, then she wouldn't have sex with a Japanese man. She would have to be raped, in which case race is the least of her reasons.

the arguments for abortion I have read are that a woman should be not critized no matter what.

I don't think I've read any arguments "for abortion." The arguments are for the right and access to safe, legal abortion. Giving women the right to have abortions does not equate to giving them freedom from judgement and criticism for choosing abortions due to careless behaviour or prejudiced attitudes. I also agree with the right to free speech, including my right to call someone an irresponsible twat for using abortion as primary birth control.

More than anything, the reason I'm pro-choice is that abortions are going to happen whether they're safe and legal or not. Do I think that some women who choose abortions are being irresponsible and selfish? Absofuckinglutely. But I would rather they be irresponsible and selfish and healthy than irresponsible and selfish and bleeding to death in some dentist's back room.
 
This. Furthermore-no one but the woman making the choice REALLY knows. Limitations of ability can be invisible to outsiders. You don't know if my situation is safe for a new baby or not. You can only assume. It is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone but me to know if I am able to care for a child and even my own knowing is limited because shit could change on the dime.
It is all well and good for EVERYONE to have an opinion about what they are willing to do. But it isn't anyone's place to decide what someone else should do. Even if someone decides to have an abortion after testing-no one but they know the TRUE reason they made that choice. It is all assumption. Assume... Ass....
How would that happen, exactly? If she's racist against Japanese, then she wouldn't have sex with a Japanese man. She would have to be raped, in which case race is the least of her reasons.



I don't think I've read any arguments "for abortion." The arguments are for the right and access to safe, legal abortion. Giving women the right to have abortions does not equate to giving them freedom from judgement and criticism for choosing abortions due to careless behaviour or prejudiced attitudes. I also agree with the right to free speech, including my right to call someone an irresponsible twat for using abortion as primary birth control.

More than anything, the reason I'm pro-choice is that abortions are going to happen whether they're safe and legal or not. Do I think that some women who choose abortions are being irresponsible and selfish? Absofuckinglutely. But I would rather they be irresponsible and selfish and healthy than irresponsible and selfish and bleeding to death in some dentist's back room.
 
I wrote this about abortion some time ago.

Any child with a difference needs extra and specific parenting to overcome the unique obstacles to them achieving their full potential. Only an individual can decide if they have the resources to provide that bit of extra, and yes, few may decide the obstacles a facial disfigurement presents arent something they can support a child in overcoming. This is especially relevant in countries that do not have adequate health and social services for everyone, or even try to have a system that looks like it's meant to provide that comprehensive care.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top