(VIDEO) Witness in Fetal Pain Hearing Told By Committee Member That Baby Was “Viable”


When Alicia Hemple went to testify against Minnesota’s proposed “fetal pain” ban, she likely didn’t expect that one of the committee members would tell her that her baby, who was diagnosed with Trisomy 18, really was “viable” despite her own doctor telling her otherwise.

Rep. Bob Barrett, a freshman Republican, then told Ms. Hemple that she should have ignored her doctor’s advice and sought help from a prenatal hospice group just as Sen. Rick Santorum did with his child.

“[Santorum] did open my eyes to the fact that a lot of these children are born and they do live a life past infancy, and they are happy kids.  And they can provide joy and love and support and they’re part of a family.  And you obviously made the choice you did.  I would like to inform everyone who isn’t aware to check out prenatal partners for life because they have a wonderful organization that helps families in your situation understand this issue that a lot people don’t understand — these babies are viable, they are important, they are God’s child.”

Watch the video below.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Robin Marty on twitter: @robinmarty

  • starrsitter

    I’m not a doctor, but I play one in state government…?

  • squirrely-girl

    … of my ongoing Facebook series: Better Know a Douchebag. :/

  • yellerkitty

    Well, that’s certainly all the proof we should require that some anencephalic or microcephalic fetuses actually are viable and go on to fulfulling futures in Congress where they derive much mindless pleasure in torturing others. There apparently are sufficient numbers of individuals in this category to comprise a ‘viable’ electorate . . .

  • therealistmom

    … because otherwise my posting would have consisted of nothing but inappropriate language.

     

    Just… gah! How COULD this bastard stand in judgment of such a thing?! The two weeks of waiting on an amnio to find out if the fetus I was carrying had trisomy 18 were the worst of my life- and that was just IMAGINING having to end a wanted pregnancy because of such an over-reaching genetic anomaly. This woman had to endure so much and he presumes… I’m incoherent right now.

  • plume-assassine

    Oh, thank you, Bob Barrett for your astounding MEDICAL ANALYSIS! Can you imagine, if only this poor woman wasn’t so naive and had known that her baby with Trisomy 18 was actually viable and healthy… and that her doctor was actually a professional liar; oh, if only Bob Barrett and “Prenatal Partners for Life” had been there for her sooner! She could’ve celebrated wonderful milestones over a period of several minutes to several weeks, like watching her newborn infant suffer complications from microcephaly as well as congenital heart and kidney failure.

     

    : [

     

    What a vile, evil, and heartless creep, this man, to spout such nonsense in the face of Ms. Hemple’s tragic loss and heartbreaking decision. That video was at once both sad and infuriating to watch.

  • ahunt

    Contemptible.

  • progo35

    While this person’s terrible story is heartrending, it also, once again, uses children with fatal anomalies and other disabilities to push late term abortion. On the other hand, it sounds like rep. Barret was conflcating Trisomy 18, which is fatal, with other disabilities that are not fatal, such as Down Syndrome and other trisomies that do not result in death. He should have made that distinction clearer, as not doing so was insensitive to the different experiences of parents and their children with disabilities.  Ins fn terms of the Heartbreaking Choice website, most of the stories are sympathetic but some show that the woman making the decision was influenced by the ableism of our culture in cases where they knew the baby would survive but would grow up as a disabled person. I remember one story where the author, who had terminated based on a diagnosis of Down Syndrome, wrote, “I have come to feel that the real tragedy is not that my son is dead, but that he had a severe disability.” My sympathy for her heartbreak does not nullify my feeling that terminations for disabilities that are not fatal are abelist decisions.

  • goatini

    Again, from this poster, what a bunch of convoluted garbage, all in the effort to keep women relegated to status as homebound livestock.

     

    And now that we have the medical science to know about fetal disability, it’s just not enough for people like him – he wants to force a lifetime of misery, pain, sorrow, poverty, frustration, sadness and hopelessness on women and their families.  He doesn’t want women to be able to terminate a severely compromised fetus, regardless of the human toll of misery that will most definitely ensue from not being able to do so.  

     

    In a potential scenario where a woman is pregnant with a severely defective fetus, he doesn’t even WANT her to have the opportunity to terminate, become pregnant again, and have a healthy birth that results in a healthy baby.  He wants to sentence her and her family to a life of misery.  And he has the nerve to try and tell you that it’s some kind of bigoted act of evil to “discriminate” against a severely defective fetus.  

     

    Once there is a child born into the family, there are enough dangers that could relegate the child – or anyone else in the family – to a life of permanent disability that is hard enough to deal with.  WHY in the world does ANYONE think it is a good idea to force a woman to bring a severely compromised fetus to term?  

  • plume-assassine

    fatal anomalies and other disabilities to push late term abortion

    Oh, really? Do you think that the woman in the video was trying to “push late term abortion”? What exactly would she achieve by pushing late term abortion on other women? Hmm.. sounds like a different brand of anti-choice philosophy.

     

    Barret was conflcating Trisomy 18, which is fatal, with other disabilities that are not fatal, such as Down Syndrome and other trisomies that do not result in death

    So, understanding that Trisomy 18 is a fatal condition, you would think that abortion is a grace and mercy, yes?

    Maybe you could clarify something else for me. How is it better/more moral for both the parents and a slowly dying newborn to suffer… as opposed to choosing abortion, thereby preventing the suffering of all parties?

  • therealistmom

    “Life” must be given at all costs, no matter how slim it might be or potentially painful, because we don’t know 100% if the fetus and then baby will feel pain or not. Better 15 minutes of dying after birth than allowing the couple to begin healing with an abortion of a doomed fetus. There is no “debate” about fetal pain except from the anti-choicers. Consistently, studies have shown that the receptiors and wiring of the nervous system for pain are not devloped until late in pregnancy, the “debate” among legitimate researchers being only if it is 29 weeks or later, in general. The more recent studies support the unconsciousness sceanrio, where the fetus is chemically prohibited from the sensation of pain due to the environment inside the uterus, which makes sense considering how excruciatingly painful the birth process would be otherwise. JUST IN CASE, the tiny, infintisimal case, there might be suffering on the part of the fetus, an injection may be given to stop the heart before the abortion is even carried out- something that sounds much more compassionate to both the woman and the fetus than delivery of a sort-of live infant (in that it is attempting to breathe, but will never attain consciousness).

     

    The insitence will come though, that any life is better than no life, because she has a disability and she knows, and none of us can know the mind of a any specific disabled person. Desiring fewer people have to deal with varied disabilities is the same as desiring genocide… though to me saying “I wish fewer people had to deal with being blind/ having Down syndrome/ having spinal bifida” is a wish much like “I wish fewer people had to have cancer”, a desire for unpleasant circumstances not to be visited on people. But in this thought process that’s the same as desiring black people didn’t exist- because a disability, no matter how it may affect someone and their families, is a “difference” like skin or hair color. In the view of society, it should be, in the treatment of people with disabilities- but pretending that these traits are equally “good” doesn’t do anyone any favors. Yep, I’m an ableist bitch I guess.

     

    My daughter is a beautiful and loving person, but if she could NOT have Down syndrome, I would grant that in a heartbeat.

  • arekushieru

    And WHY should she have to risk permanent disability in order to do so?Although, that would probably quickly put paid to any of the poster’s suggestions that we are simply discriminating against those who are disabled. After all, this woman probably wouldn’t think she’s ‘better off’ now that she has a permanent disability.

     

     http://katyupdate.wordpress.com/

     

    Have you guys seen this?  I bet Progo hasn’t.  She wouldn’t be so cavalier if she had, because it’s much the same as what I referred to, above. 

     

     

  • goatini

    that it was that poor woman in Houston who lost her limbs due to a strep infection incurred during the hospital birth of her child.  I’ve been following her story.  

     

    This could happen to ANYONE.  This is a risk of pregnancy and childbirth.  Further reason why NO WOMAN should be forced to be pregnant against her will.  It is up to her to choose all the risks inherent in the process.  

     

    Just imagine if you had an unwanted pregnancy, forced to go to full term, and THEN something awful like this happens as a result of the pregnancy.  

     

    But don’t worry!  Progo and his pals in the Disability P!mp industry will be there to give you advice about what to do with your totally ruined life.    A life that DIDN’T have to be ruined.  

  • crowepps

    After all, this woman probably wouldn’t think she’s ‘better off’ now that she has a permanent disability.

    As I understand Progo’s position, the only reason the woman will think a permanent disablity like having no limbs makes her ‘worse off’ is that she’s internalized society’s ableist attitudes and is prejudiced against herself.

  • goatini

    “Upon their son’s death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen’s parents’ home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass.

    “He and Karen brought Gabriel’s body home so their children could ‘absorb and understand that they had a brother,’ Santorum says. ‘We wanted them to see that he was real,’ not an abstraction, he says. Not a ‘fetus,’ either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described — ‘a 20-week-old fetus’ — on a hospital form. They changed the form to read ’20-week-old baby.'”

     

    …. because emotionally scarring your LIVING CHILDREN for life, is what “life” is all about!

  • ack

    I understand that everyone grieves differently, but I agree about involving their children. Those kids are too young to process this, and I would be equally disturbed if they brought grandma’s corpse home for family photos and a cuddle session.

  • plume-assassine

    I would be scarred for life if I saw that kind of grief display as a child. I imagine any sensitive child would be.

  • therealistmom

    We incubated chicks in class in second grade and somebody decided to ahow us what the developing embryo looked like by cracking an egg onto a paper plate. I still get queasy thinking about it, because of my age and the shock. Since then I’ve watched a cat be autopsied and other such things just fine, but that chicken embryo freaks me out.

  • crowepps

    Considering that one of the children was a toddler of 1 and a half, and they were encouraging him/her to TALK TO and KISS and FONDLE a tiny fetal corpse while insisting it was a ‘baby’, it approaches outright abuse.  But then, I’m sure their children have had lots of worse experiences while coping with parents who are religious hysterics, who insist on wallowing in sentimentality and who demand that everyone ‘respect’ their delusional beliefs.

  • arekushieru

    Even their belief that a fetus is a ‘baby’….

  • progo35

    RealistMom’s contribution illustrates my point. She makes no attempt to distinguish between  the disability of her own daughter, who has down syndrome, and that of people afflicted with Trisomy 18, even though they are very different conditions and people with Down Syndrome have as much potential to lead fulfilling lives as the rest of us. To her, it seems, both disabilities are severe enough to warrant an abortion, as she has said elsewhere that had she known her daughter had down syndrome, she would have had an abortion and  still wishes she had known. This is why disability activists regard late term abortion as an affront to human diversity-because disabilities that result in someone growing up as a disabled person are treated as being the same as disabilities that end a child’s life a few minutes after it enters the world. Moreover, having a relative, or even a child, with a disability does not nullify any ableist prejudices a person might hold. Her contention that disability is not diversity is a reflection of this.

    Moreover, I think it’s rather odd that people here consider what was done by the Santorums to be “sick,” since patients at Dr. Tiller’s clinic were offered the opportunity to do just that-kiss and hold the body of their baby and participate in ceremonies such as baptism after the abortion had been carried out. Moreover, the disdain directed toward the parents’ personal choice in this instance seems to reflect a lack of support for the concept of choice in general. The couple did not make the choice you support-to have a late term abortion, so their actions are “sick.”

  • squirrely-girl

    I think it’s healthy for us ALL to remember that an individual woman’s choice is just that… her choice. Whatever that may be. I have no issue with individual women making the choices that best reflect their needs and situation. 

     

    But to believe those choices should be restricted or denied based on another individual’s beliefs or personal perspective/opinion is just wrong. 

     

    Other than showing a dead body to children under 10 (that’s wrong and we all f’n know it so don’t even try to defend the Santorum’s on that one) I can support the Santorum’s in their desire to make pregnancy/childbirth decisions in accordance with their own beliefs. I also support women who don’t wish to carry to term with a fetus who will suffer if born… and I TRUST WOMEN to make those decisions in accordance with their personal/moral beliefs and with the support of their physicians and loved ones. 

     

    None of us have the right to sit here and decide what disability is “disabled enough” to deny women control over their own reproduction. That is wrong.

  • plume-assassine

    I can’t comment on RealistMom’s situation, but I feel that it doesn’t have anything to do with ableism or a desire for “perfection.” It comes from the need to give your child the most fulfilling life possible, and if there are dangerous complications associated with Down’s syndrome (which there are many), I can sympathize with the women who do choose abortion. It may be heartbreaking if you are not ready to accept such a challenge, especially knowing that your child may die from congenital heart failure before age 2, or that he/she may only have half the lifespan they ought to have due to other complications, like leukemia, early-onset Alzheimer’s, or obesity. There are many parents who are ready and welcome this challenge and choose to carry to term, and their decision should be respected. But you can’t shame or guilt-trip those women have had abortions in such a situation, because you can’t possibly know what it’s like. Their decision should also be respected. Forcing those women to give birth – who are not ready to accept the challenge of raising a disabled child – will not get rid of prejudices or ableism. Disallowing abortion is not going to make a difference in reducing prejudice; education will.

     

    Moreover, I think it’s rather odd that people here consider what was done by the Santorums to be “sick,” since patients at Dr. Tiller’s clinic were offered the opportunity to do just that-kiss and hold the body of their baby and participate in ceremonies such as baptism after the abortion had been carried out. Moreover, the disdain directed toward the parents’ personal choice in this instance seems to reflect a lack of support for the concept of choice in general. The couple did not make the choice you support-to have a late term abortion, so their actions are “sick.”

    Actually, there is a difference here: that the Santorums involved their children in their grief, and turned it into a grief display. They insisted on bringing it home and including their children in a situation that they could not process. I don’t care how adults want to privately grieve, whether they gave birth to a stillborn, had a miscarriage, or if they chose late term abortion, because, yes, that may include holding the fetus and taking pictures to deal with loss. However, I think it’s another thing entirely when that grief is no longer private and involves children who do not understand what’s going on and are trying to comprehend what mommy and daddy are doing with their dead baby brother/sister. That’s just too much.

  • progo35

    I should say that from a disability rights perspective, the issue is not so much about whether or not women ought to have the legal right to make these decisions themselves as it is about the belief that a disabled person would have been better off being aborted than being born. The majority of mainstream disability rights organizations take a pro choice position on the issue of abortion but do caution against abortion based on fetal disability. In short, they don’t seek to limit the choices of women, but do encourage women not to abort a wanted baby because it is found to have a disability. Such an action is believed to be motivated by societal prejudice, lack of resources, and pressure from outside sources, such as doctors, spouses, etc. Yes, I know that doctors are not supposed to coerce women into making one decision or another, but many women have reported that their decisions to carry their children to term met with the ire of people around them, including those who were supposed to provide unbiased advice, such as doctors and genetic counselors.

  • ack

    Plenty of people give a last kiss or other wise show affection for deceased relatives and friends. It’s the involvement of their children that I find disturbing. I would feel equally disturbed if someone brought home ANY corpse and encouraged their young children to do what the Santorums did. I don’t think it’s appropriate to make a kid give one last kiss to grandma in the casket, either, but that’s not nearly as extreme as this situation.

     

    Saying good-bye is an essential part of the grieving process, and everyone can decide how to do that. But parents who are making decisions for very young children need to be thoughtful about the emotional safety and well-being of those children.

  • ack

    Progo, I agree that this is a very complicated issue. I think lack of resources is one of the fundamental pieces here. Most of the parents of kids with special needs that I’ve worked with had to fight like hell to get their child what he or she needed. Day care becomes even more cost-prohibitive, leading parents (usually the mother) to stop working, adding additional financial strain. State funded services are limited and dwindling. Public schools are ill-equipped to provide the accomodations necessary to maximize educational opportunities.

     

    I don’t believe that people who are born with disabilites would have been better off if their mothers had chosen abortion. But I can understand that the multitude of barriers erected can lead women and families to decide that they’re not in a position to adequately care for a child with special needs if they discover that during a pregnancy.

     

    I’m not sure if all that made sense. Like I said, it’s a very complicated issue.

  • colleen

    What’s the matter, Progo? Are you still annoyed that Realist Mom wouldn’t tell you and your ‘pro-life’ buddies where she lives so you could report her to child protective services. Your offers to “help” were so transparent

     

    Moreover, I think it’s rather odd that people here consider what was done by the Santorums to be “sick

    Of course you do. For ‘pro-life’ zealots, nothing says “good parenting” more than forcing your 4 year old to hold the corpse of a dead fetus.

  • crowepps

    people with Down Syndrome have as much potential to lead fulfilling lives as the rest of us.

    The effects of Down Syndrome fall on a continuum from mild to severe.   Exactly what physical disabilities are involved (malformed heart/no esophagus) and where the ultrasound seems to indicate their own fetus will  be on the spectrum is going to strongly influence the parents’ decision.  You are very scornful of doctors who urge parents to abort because the doctors are prejudiced against the disabled.  IMO it’s equally wrong for you and other disability advocates to pressure the parents NOT to abort in order to meet YOUR emotional needs.

     

    Parents should be provided with factual information about the prognosis and the medical, social and educational support available for the child if it’s born, in a nonjudgmental manner with no proselytizing or religious cant, and then allowed to make up their own minds.

    I think it’s rather odd that people here consider what was done by the Santorums to be “sick,”

    The Santorums explained pretty clearly that they insisted on bringing the corpse home over the hospital’s objections to ‘share’ with their children because they wanted them to understand that it was a ‘baby’ and how important that was to the parents.  What would your reaction be if in an effort to ‘share’ with their children how important it was to be kind to animals, they brought home and ‘shared’ with the children a dead puppy?

     

    While certainly they had every right to handle the tragic complication to this pregnancy in exactly the way that met their needs, to me it was just plain weird that Daddy Santorum in particular got so hysterical about the use of the medical term ‘fetus’ that he and his wife had to snatch up the corpse and run home to have a collective grief wallow with their children, even their toddler, as an audience to their moaning and wailing.

     

    The language of their explanation is so overwrought and  emotionally unstable that it’s pretty clear this was about meeting the needs of the parents and they didn’t consider for a moment their responsibility to protect their children from emotional damage.  In fact, it sounds as though that was the whole POINT — to traumatize the children as much as possible in the hopes that using the corpse of a dead child to terrify them would make an impression on their little minds.  I’m sure it did.  I’m sure years from now their therapists will hear ALL about it.

  • arekushieru

    IMO it’s equally wrong for you and other disability advocates to pressure the parents NOT to abort in order to meet YOUR emotional needs.

    Almost sounds like they want the pendulum to swing the other way, that fetuses without disabilities should be prejudiced against.

  • therealistmom

    around about the time Sarah Palin joins MENSA.

     

    I find it no end of amusing that when I speak openly of the challenges and desires of a real woman of a child with a disability that it must be something horrible and shameful. I dealt with guilt for literally years that a tiny part of me had wished my daughter had been stillborn during those first hours of shock after her delivery. At least then, my tattered thinking held, I could mourn and move on. Of course when I went to the nursery, when I held her and fed her via the stomach tube, when it was real again that she was my baby, that all was pushed aside. It wasn’t until years later when I was in counciling for my depression that a therapist told me these feelings are NORMAL and I would probably mourn the child that ‘could have been’ for a lifetime in some way or another.

     

    But we aren’t supposed to talk about that. We’re supposed to pretend. We’re supposed to accept the heaps of disgust should we actually admit taht we wish things could be different, both for our children and for our families. We’re supposed to be happy that our vacation “took us to Holland” no matter what.

     

    I love all of my children with every fiber of my being. That is exactly WHY, if I could wave my magic wand, my middle child would never have to face the difficulties in learning, the creeping obesity, the potential health problems… her eye surgeries, the bone marrow biopsy. The worrying about if some asshole is going to take advantage of her. My youngest child wopuld be freed of the severe ADHD and potential Asperger’s that blunts his ability to socialize, to focus in school, to control his temper and frustration. The genius IQ child who can’t sit still, who gets suspended for fighting, and screams his agony at it all.

     

    It’s the truth, and I will not be shamed for admitting it.

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    In short, they don’t seek to limit the choices of women, but do encourage women not to abort a wanted baby because it is found to have a disability. 

    I think you raise some really valid points here. If you look at positions on abortion the same as any other personality characteristic or variable (e.g., as existing along a continuum) I think it is MORE than reasonable to think that individuals could be considered outliers or as “extreme” on either end of that continuum. I have met some people I would consider to be “pro-abortion” (e.g., think most every woman should be aborting) and I don’t think that’s any better than being “anti-abortion.”

    Yes, I know that doctors are not supposed to coerce women into making one decision or another, but many women have reported that their decisions to carry their children to term met with the ire of people around them, including those who were supposed to provide unbiased advice, such as doctors and genetic counselors.

    But I would suggest that these individuals do seek to limit those women’s choices. They are still pressuring another person toward a reproductive decision that appeases their own position and beliefs on abortion. I find this wrong. I find it equally disturbing to pressure a woman toward abortion as I do toward carrying to term. I find it unacceptable to pressure another individual with regard to reproduction. That is FAR too personal an experience to pressure another individual’s behaviors. There are far TOO many potential consequences and outcomes of any reproductive decision, none of which will truly be born by any other person than the individual pregnant woman.  

     

    I believe in freedom of individual choice in the same way I believe in autonomy and free will. This is a classical liberal thought position on this topic. It really isn’t a state versus federal issue but rather, given the issues of individual liberty and bodily autonomy, it isn’t really an issue for the law to be written at all (at least to the disgusting extent that it is). I truly believe Roe v. Wade is the closest we’re likely to come to a “compromise” on the issue. Extremists on either end of this issue are “happy” but extremists never are. 

     

    If you can’t trust a woman with a choice why would you trust her with a child?

  • squirrely-girl

    … for sharing your thoughts on this. 

    I find it no end of amusing that when I speak openly of the challenges and desires of a real woman of a child with a disability that it must be something horrible and shameful.

    That individuals seek to shame women for expressing anything but joy for a narrowly prescribed “motherhood experience” is easily one of the most offensive aspects to this entire issue. Women are individuals. Individuals experience every life event along a normally distributed continuum. No “one” experience will be had by all or even most. 

    It’s the truth, and I will not be shamed for admitting it.

    Nor should you. And however you ultimately arrived at this point psychologically, I’m glad you did. :)

  • ack

    Thank you for being a realist mom. Your experience, and the experience of women and girls everywhere are the reason we have these discussions.

  • crowepps

    But we aren’t supposed to talk about that. We’re supposed to pretend.

    Women who are raped are supposed to pretend they can love the baby.

     

    Women whose doctors tell them their pregnancies are doomed are supposed to pretend there might be a miracle and continue their pregnancies anyway.

     

    Women at risk of dying are supposed to pretend it’s God’s Plan that they die along with their fetus.

     

    Women are supposed to pretend that abortion is a horrible, terrible thing and they feel really, REALLY guilty about getting one because as long as they pretend to feel that way, their ProLife friends will ‘forgive’ them not just for the last one but also for going in and getting the NEXT one.

     

    Women are supposed to pretend their active sex life is entirely motivated by the fact they want children, even when they’ve secretly gotten an IUD.

     

    I can understand people having strong moral convictions, but I have never understand exactly how hypocrisy, insincerity, self-righteousness and lack of integrity became ‘moral convictions’.

  • therealistmom

    You’ve summed up the adult life experiences of most women. Put on that smile. Have that baby. It’s your goal and purpose in life, now be happy about it.  If you somehow “fail” in that “ultimate duty” to become a mother whether by design or by circumstance, you damn well better feel guilty about it and feel as though you are less than a woman. (Whatever the hell that means.)

     

    I would have done nobody a favor by having a baby at 15 in an emotionally abusive relationship (on both sides, dysfunction and immaturity are horrible bedfellows), least of all the baby. I guess I was supposed to pretend, no matter what it would have done to the child…

  • littleblue

    This is summed up quite well in a lyric from a song goes like this:  “You gotta bring your own sun… just enough for everyone.” 

  • beenthere72

    I don’t know how mothers like you do it.   I see my sister with her severe ADHD son who possibly also has Asperger’s and I think:  I couldn’t do it.  I don’t know what I’d do in the same situation.  I know it’s different if it’s your own child but I just don’t think I’d have her same amount of patience and calmness.   He’s a nightmare!    And now she’s going through a divorce – and I read that divorce rates are higher when you have children with disabilities, and she was fired from her job after she switched to part-time hours to spend more time with her kids during this tough time (totally heartless boss – but luckily she was able to find a new job quickly given her incredible credentials).  

     

    So huge kudos and hugs to you.   If you ever doubt yourself, think of people like me who are in awe of all you do for you kids.   I tell my sister often that she’s an amazing mother.  

  • saltyc

    double post

  • progo35

    “Almost sounds like they want the pendulum to swing the other way, that fetuses without disabilities should be prejudiced against.”

     

    OML, Are, are you kidding? Surely you have a more accurate perception of reality than THAT. Where, in my post, or in the posts/writings of a disability advocate on this issue, have you seen us argue that a nondisabled child should be discriminated against? This is you putting words in people’s mouths.

     

    As to the woman who made the comment about Asbergers and ADD. I have both. I am glad that there is no prenatal test that gives women the “choice” to bring people like me into the world, just as I am happy that there is no prenatal test for sexual orientation or race. In fact, before I knew of the percentage of research used to develop these tests and the use of prenatal tests to screen out disabled fetuses, I supported more scientific inquiry into the causes for these disorders and planned to contribute to that, such as allowing scientists to examine my brain after death, but now I definitely won’t. I don’t want to be a part of that if all it’s going to lead to is less people like me being born. 

  • progo35

    SquirrelyGirl and Ack-I think that you raise valid points as well. Your reasoning is why most disability rights organizations support the right to decide what to do in the case of a prenatal diagnosis. It is not ableist, in my view, and certainly not in the disabled community’s view (I think) that supporting the choice of women to make her own decision amounts to ableism. And, although some people will think I’m lying through my teeth, I do feel genuine grief and compassion for women who are devastated by a diagnosis and make the decision to terminate. It would be a cold person to not feel compassion for anyone who is grieving so deeply.

    SaltyC argues that the disabled community is trying to pressure women not to terminate. This is not the truth. Research into the issue reveals groups of parents who volunteer to be resources to people faced with various diagnosis. (Sometimes a good genetic counselor or doctor will have a list of such resources, as will the National Association on Down Syndrome, etc.) Such connections may be the only time a woman and her partner hear that having a disability is not the end of the world and that abortion is not her only moral option. In all of the cases I have read, the purpose of these organizations is to give the prospective parents a more accurate idea of what it might actually be like to have a disabled child, not to sway them one way or the other. For those who are interested in the issue, I encourage you to read the Disability Studies Reader, which contains two essays on the issue of choice, disability, and prenatal diagnosis, which also do not tell women what to do but encourage prospective mothers to look beyond cultural conceptions of disability.

  • saltyc

    SaltyC argues that the disabled community is trying to pressure women not to terminate. 

    For the record, no I wasn’t arguing that and no I don’t have any clue as to whether the disabled community is doing this or that. I was replying to specific comments you made which were fallacious for the reasons I already spelled out.

  • saltyc

    the issue is not so much about whether or not women ought to have the legal right to make these decisions themselves as it is about the belief that a disabled person would have been better off being aborted than being born. 

    This is a logical fallacy. To say that you can’t be responsible for raising a disabled person in the future and bringing them into the world is not the same as saying that a disabled person who’s already here, already has self-awareness, already has social ties, already has wants, dreams and desires, should not have been born. The two are not the same at all and I wonder why you need to conflate the two. I mean, you really expect others to accept that saying “I really hope I don’t have to devote my life to raising a severly disabled person” is the same as saying I really wish you, severly disabled person who I’m not responsible for, had never been born.” the two are miles apart in honesty, empathy and consideration.

    Such an action is believed to be motivated by societal prejudice, lack of resources, and pressure from outside sources,

    OK the first and last motivations are invalid and can be fixed, but don’t try to confuse us by equating a lack of resources with the other two. Just how is a woman supposed to fix lack of resources? If she knows she has a lack of resources, then it’s only fair to let her decide whether or not to bring someone into the world when she already knows she’ll fail them.


  • progo35

    SaltyC-the “Lack of resources” isn’t so much due to the resources not being there, but to people being assholes and making it hard to access them. Case in point: When I was in school, a simple, free accommodation that my Mom and I asked for was for me to be able to sit in the first seat of the first row all the time so that I would not get confused as to which seat was mine, which happened when I was assigned a seat in the middle of the room. This confusion caused me horrible embarassment, and so the consistent seating freed me from that problem. But, did the school and teachers go for that willingly? Hell, no! They fought my mom and I all the way, saying that I needed to “deal with life” and that somehow, now knowing where to sit and being embarassed in front of everyone would “give me the tools to develop problem solving skills.” That was, of course, shit, and my parents and I prevailed. Moreover, this did not cost anyone a dime. In summation, “lack of resources” is a problem borne from ignorance more than necessity. This ignorance doesn’t mean that the potential mother and her family won’t be able to acess them and give the child a good life. So, it is fallacy to say that the woman “already knows she’ll fail them.” She does NOT know that.

  • therealistmom

    I personally would never condone prenatal screenings for ADHD and Asperger’s, not because I myself am ADHD (which is lovely when combined with Major Depressive disorger/ Generalized Anxiety Disorder) but because these are issues that really are more personality-driven and can be adapted to, for the most part. I realize this likely puts me in a bit of a hypocrite spot. I can recognize my own blind spots, which is why I would never assume that MY point of view should be made into law. In the end, any decisions regarding a pregnancy belong to the woman and the woman alone. It is the responsibility of the health care providers to give as much unbiased information as possible and leave anything more up to that woman, and nobody else. Period.

     

    I still would take the challenges my son faces away, if I could.

     

    And frankly, what if my mother had the ability to know I would be born with depression, and chose not to continue the pregnancy? [i]I wouldn’t be here to know about it.[/i] The world is not going to be “lessened”  by the lack of the presence of one woman with depression. The world, frankly, wouldn’t be lessened if depression disappeared altogether. Does that mean I think people should be wholescale aborting fetuses because there is a chance they might eventually be children with depression? Of course not. But if depression didn’t exist, [i]that in and of itself would not be a bad thing[/i]. Some things simply are not positive.

     

    So, Progo, should we stop researching cures for things like, say, spinal injuries? After all, if someone hates being in a wheelchair, it is OBVIOUSLY because society has poisoned him against himself and his disability. It couldn’t be that the child at the edge of the playground really wishes he could run and jump like the rest of the children. If he does, it’s because he doesn’t understand that he is different but that not having use of his legs is [i]just as good[/i]as being able to do those things.

     

    See, most of us would say the CHILD is just as good as any other child, but his desire to want to do those things is normal, and we would support research into making it possible. We wouldn’t tell him that he is poisoned by society’s view of his disability and he shouldn’t desire anything to be different about himself, ever. We wouldn’t condemn people who want to eliminate paralysis as trying to commit some kind of genocide against people who can’t walk. We wouldn’t say that we need to have MORE people with ambulatory problems so that they will be more visible in the public eye. We would just want the very best for THAT CHILD.

  • saltyc

    Wait. how do you get from your example to saying that a woman’s estimation of whether she can do right by a child is fallacious? Who are you to say that all women can access all the resources she needs if she only tries harder? That’s as phony as the line that God won’t give you more than you can handle. 

    She does NOT know that.

    Sometimes a lack of resources is not trivial. You do NOT know better than a woman, whether her estimation of whether she will have the material, emotional and social resources to devote to a severely disabled child is accurate or not. There are other, far more debilitaing circumstances that can’t be fixed as easily as with your example. Sometimes the resources really aren’t there.

  • progo35

    RM-It is normal to say, “gee, I wish that less people were blind/had Down Syndrome” if you are not used to dealing with it and it has caused a major change in your life. It is normal for you to grieve the loss of the life you envisioned for your child because you weren’t anticipating her disability-just as it might be upsetting to have to move to another country against your will. To use the Paris/Holland example you cited, it would be unfair to expect you to to be happy that you ended up in Holland when you had your heart set on living in Paris. The country itself is not bad, but you wanted to live somewhere else, so for you, it is bad. Thus, it makes sense for you to grieve and be unhappy about that aspect of your situation. Although the idea of a cure is cotentious in the disabled community, I could also understand you expressing the idea that you wish you could cure your daughter’s handicap, which I guess is analgous to someone saying, “I still wish I lived in Paris.” What IS troublesome is your contention that you still wish that you had known about your daughter’s disability prior to her birth so that you could have had an abortion, thereby aruging that it is better for someone not to exist than  for you to loose your dream of living in Paris. That is pretty extreme, because you are defining your daughter’s very existence by her disability and nothing else. I don’t think that your view is more “realistic” than the view that Down Syndrome is a deviation from the norm or the expected, and not a tragedy. In short, it is normal to feel the way you do, but please don’t expect the disabled community to endorse your intellectual position on this issue.

  • progo35

    What I described is hardly meant to be interepreted as a statement that a lack of resources is “trivial.” Okay, here’s a more significant example: the AHC website says that children/people with Down Syndrome are automatically inelligible for heart transplants. This is only partly true. There is nothing physical that makes a person with DS ineligible for this procedure, what makes children “ineligible” are doctors who value the lives of people with DS less than they those of nondisabled people. Heart transplants and operations have been sucessfully performed on people with Down Syndrome, but the parents might have to do quite a bit of searching before they find a doctor/hospital who is not prejudiced against their child. Funding can be significant, but that is why we have programs like Medicaid and Medicare. And, even if your family doesn’t qualify for Medicaid, the child automatically qualifies for Medicare due to his or her disability. 

     

    I would never suggest that it’s a matter of “just trying harder.” That’s the reason I gave the example that I did-because even when the resource is there and can be provided, people just don’t want to cooperate because they are bigots, and will wring you through the dishwasher before  providing the most basic assistance. (Some people are NOT like that, and will bend over backwards to help out-I’ve met both). What I am saying is that resources are not unavailable, they are withheld by biased people, and what needs to be removed is the bias, not the potential child.

  • plume-assassine

    Ummmmm… wow, I always felt that the “pro-life” philosophy was all about “My mommy didn’t abort ME! Therefore you should not be able to have an abortion.”  

     

    Do you honestly believe that medical studies to analyze certain disorders are going to lead to a kind of Gattaca? If anything, they are going to help people achieve a better quality of life who are already living with a disorder/disability or will be born with one. There will always be people out there who do not care what sort of disability or disorder their child has, as long as it’s not completely life-threatening or debilitating. Just as there will always be people out there who need to have the choice of whether they are ready to accept the challenge of raising a severely disabled child or not.

     

    There won’t be a prenatal test for ADHD, depression, or Asperger’s because, yes, although they are influenced by one’s biology, they are also influenced by one’s environment. (Unlike entirely genetic conditions such as Trisomy 18 or Trisomy 21.) ADHD, depression, etc. are also better described as disorders than as serious disabilities that may come with dangerous complications, such as Down’s syndrome.

  • saltyc

    Not all resources are there to be blocked by uncooperative people. I know because I support someone who is disabled, in that I pay his rent and clothes and consumer products and driving him places he needs to be. Believe me, it was not my choice, it was foisted upon me but to let him die (which I’m pretty sure he would if I didn’t) would be a worse prospect for me, only because it would devastate someone else I do care about. And public assistance is extremely hard to come by, they try hard not to fill the rolls. Not everyone can totally support another person. It can break a family or a person if they aren’t prepared. And that’s just the time effort and money. The emotional toll is another issue that people need to know if they have it in them.

  • crowepps

    What I am saying is that resources are not unavailable, they are withheld by biased people, and what needs to be removed is the bias, not the potential child.

    I think you’re absolutely right.  Instead of harassing women, why don’t you go harass the bigots whose bias fills the women with such dread about their child’s future?  It’s pretty unreasonable to tell the women everyone will be prejudiced against their children, that doctors and hospitals and schools will all make their and their child’s life a misery, that they will have trouble accessing appropriate health care, that they will have to concentrate all their energy for YEARS on fighting the bigots and attempting to help their child gain some minimal support, and then lay on a heavy guilt-trip because they’re not thrilled about it.

     

    Frankly, listening to you complain about how difficult your life is and how everybody is prejudiced against you and nobody will ever give you a break and you have to be relentlessly hostile and suspicious because you’re just sure all your problems arise from other people’s bigotry doesn’t seem likely to inspire anybody to complete a pregnancy.

     

    Perhaps instead of shaming and blaming women who already have plenty on their plate, you and your fellow disability advocates could usefully concentrate on the task of eliminating the institutional and social bias you insist is wide-spread.  Once that’s been accomplished, the demand for abortions will disappear.

  • progo35

    To answer that, my response is that the woman involved experienced a drastic change in what her body was able to do and what she was psychologically used to being able to do. If she had been born that way, she would have grown up adapting to her handicap. Hence, it is the abrupt change in the woman’s life  and the lack of accommodations immediately available to her that was bad, not the disability itself. The woman did not want to loose her arms. Hence, losing her arms was a bad thing for her, but that does not mean that it would have been better if she’d died during labor or that a child that is found not to have arms in utero would be better off being aborted.

  • crowepps

    If she had been born that way, she would have grown up adapting to her handicap.

    And she never would have had a negative thought about her handicap because she never would have noticed that other people were different and were able to pick things up.

    Hence, it is the abrupt change in the woman’s life  and the lack of accommodations immediately available to her that was bad, not the disability itself.

    Because there isn’t any difference at all between the lives of those who have arms and those who do not have arms, unless those without arms choose to be unreasonably NEGATIVE about it.

    The woman did not want to loose her arms. Hence, losing her arms was a bad thing for her, but that does not mean that it would have been better if she’d died during labor or that a child that is found not to have arms in utero would be better off being aborted.

    Nobody said she would have been better off to die during labor and nobody said anything about aborting a child with no limbs.  Although your insistence those are the only other alternatives suggests a simple solution that will immediately eliminate prejudice and bigotry toward the disabled.  We can simply cut off the limbs of ALL the children as soon as they’re born,  enabling them to grow up adapted to their handicap, and stigma will disappear!

  • progo35

    It’s not so much the fear of a Gattacan future so much as I do not wish to be involved in research that could lead to a prenatal test for my disability. I support research that saves or improves lives, I’m just disillusioned with the use of science toward certain endeavors. It seems to me that much of the research done on DS, for instance, has simply lead to more abortions, not therapies, a cure, or access for families who need disability/medical services. This makes me think twice about being involved in any kind of research that might look for a genetic link to my disorder, or be in any way involved in developing a prenatal test. That’s unfornate, but that’s how I feel nowadays.

  • progo35

    SquirrelyGirl and Ack-I think that you raise valid points as well. Your reasoning is why most disability rights organizations support the right to decide what to do in the case of a prenatal diagnosis. It is not  my view, and certainly not the disabled community’s view (I think) that supporting the choice of women to make her own decision amounts to ableism. And, although some people will think I’m lying through my teeth, I do feel genuine grief and compassion for women who are devastated by a diagnosis and make the decision to terminate. It would be a cold person to not feel compassion for anyone who is grieving so deeply.

    SaltyC argues that the disabled community is trying to pressure women not to terminate. This is not the truth. Research into the issue reveals groups of parents who volunteer to be resources to people faced with various diagnosis. (Sometimes a good genetic counselor or doctor will have a list of such resources, as will the National Association on Down Syndrome, etc.) Such connections may be the only time a woman and her partner hear that having a disability is not the end of the world and that abortion is not her only moral option. For those who are interested in the issue, I encourage you to read the Disability Studies Reader, which contains two essays on the issue of choice, disability, and prenatal diagnosis.

  • progo35

    Crowepps, you’re the one who goes around saying that the lives of disabled people are horrible. You’re the one who used the woman who suffered an injury during birth as an example of why disabilities are not a form of diversity. You are the one that goes around arguing that anyone who complains about ableism simply has the wrong attitude. I also find it LAUGHABLE that you would admonish disability advocates to go and elminate bias when THAT’s WHAT WE DO ALL DAY.  Who do you think spends time fighting for independent living, small community housing, financial assistance, medical care, equal employment, accessible buildings, and quality special education? Angels? Federal Express? The Salvation Army? NO!

    I doubt that any person with a disability would argue that all of his or her problems stem from bigotry. I got a new cat recently and it is fighting with my other cat. That’s a problem that has nothing to do with anyone’s bias. Last week I had a depressive episode and couldn’t finish an assignment on time. That was not caused by somoene else’s bias, either. What WOULD be bias is if the professor involved had failed the assignment  or downgraded it because he had to provide the accommodation of extending my deadline. If he had done so, than his bias would have become the primary source of my anguish rather than my disability itself.

     

     

  • arekushieru

    This is exactly what I mentioned in the post that you replied to.  All of a sudden just because someone has a disability, the emotional, physical, financial and mental toll that they take on someone’s life must be completely disregarded.  I’ll give you a scenario of my own: There is a poor, single woman with a couple of children, already and, then, there is a well-to-do (but not rich), childless, couple. Both of the women in this scenario are pregnant. They both have ultrasounds performed on them.  The first woman discovers that the fetus is healthy, viable and gestating normally. The second woman discovers that the fetus she gestates has all sorts of genetic anomalies, although none of them life-threatening.  Both decide to terminate for the same reasons, they are mentally, financially, physically and emotionally unprepared for it.  Yet, you say the woman in the second scenario is doing so because of ableist reasons.  Sounds like a double-standard to me.

    That is the point that crowepps is trying to make, and the point you keep missing.

    It’s not about bias, no matter how much you say it is.  And when crowepps (and all the others) tries to relate that to you, and also gives you examples of normal feelings/emotions/behaviours that children experience completely unrelated to bias, that may impact a child with a disability negatively, you accuse her of saying that ‘the lives of disabled people are horrible’.     

  • arekushieru

    And, there you go, putting words in my mouth.  I was directing my comment at something crowepps said and how she stated it.  That’s it, that’s all.  But, now, I can definitely say that’s what it sounds like you support.  Just read my most recent post in reply to you.

  • crowepps

    Well, no, actually I didn’t say that being disabled means people have “horrible lives”.  The point I have been TRYING to get across, unsuccessfully, is that the very definition of ‘disability’ means to have a substantial IMPAIRMENT such that there is a negative impact on major life functions making it impossible to do some things, and that many people who are disabled will try any possible CURE, not because they are prejudiced against themselves but because they have things they WANT TO DO just like everybody else.

     

    Your arguments are unconvincing because you switch back and forth between ‘women making a decision about a pregnancy are ableist if they think there’s any difference between being disabled and not being disabled’ and the disabled are impacted because “people just don’t want to cooperate because they are bigots, and will wring you through the dishwasher before  providing the most basic assistance.”  You are telling women disability shouldn’t make any difference AND at the same time that there is widespread bigotry and the disabled will have to struggle to get “the most basic assistance”.  That is precisely what they are considering — is this child going to have to struggle to have a decent life?  Progo’s posts say ‘YES, the child will have to struggle, coping with bigots and with “people being assholes and making it hard to access” resources.

     

    My POINT is that you can EITHER argue that disability doesn’t make any difference OR you can put on your martyr persona and list every instance of discrimination and bigotry you’ve needed to cope with in your life.  It doesn’t work to do both in the SAME POST because there’s an obvious contradiction.

    Who do you think spends time fighting for independent living, small community housing, financial assistance, medical care, equal employment, accessible buildings, and quality special education?

    In my experience, the PARENTS of the disabled, who are sick and tired of their children being treated like encumbrances and second-class citizens and who would like to be assured that once they’ve dropped dead of exhaustion that their children aren’t going to end up lonely and miserrable, warehoused in nursing homes with Alzheimer’s patients.

     

    Again, you have a really comprehensive list of necessary resources here, and then you undercut your own argument by making it clear to women contemplating this issue after a prenatal diagnosis that, A, there aren’t enough of these resources, B, they will have to fight to see their child has access, and C, people who are prejudiced against the child will make it as hard as possible.  That is NOT CONVINCING. 

  • progo35

     “We can simply cut off the limbs of ALL the children as soon as they’re born,  enabling them to grow up adapted to their handicap, and stigma will disappear!”

     

    Yes, and then we can dye the skin of white babies black to combat discrimination against black people! (sar).

  • progo35

    crowepps-

    Nothing I say will be completely convincing to all women who read it. Some will be encouraged, some will not. I’m not responsible for how people interpret what I write. It seems to me that you are deliberately twisting what I’m saying to suit  your own interpretation of what disability is, and you are doing so by attacking anyone who talks about the discrimination that disabled people face. To here you and some of the people here talk, women shouldn’t bring female fetuses into the world, either, because of all the mean, bad anti choicers trambling on women’s rights. Of course, that’s not what either of us is getting at, and that’s not the message that women contemplating their pregnancy get.

  • progo35

     In the first scenario you describe, the woman wasn’t planning to have a baby and was going to terminate regardless of the characteristics of her fetus. She didn’t plan to have a child and then change her mind based on teh characteristics of her future child. Hence, the decision was not ableist or discriminatory. If a woman is planning to have a baby and it is found to have a non-life-limiting disorder and she and her family then decide to terminate, than yes, in my person opinion, that is an ableist decision. This is because before the disability was discovered, the fetus was a child, and the woman/family involved was prepared to see it through life’s ups and downs, loving it unconditionally, even thought it was still in the womb. But, after the disability was discovered, the woman and her family decided that they WEREN’T willing to see the child through life’s ups and downs. In essence, they reneged on the “contract” formed with the baby in their hearts when it was thought to be nondisabled. That, to me, is the very essence of ableism: to be prepared to stand with a child throughout his or her life when that child was thought to be nondisabled but then to change one’s mind based on the presence of a handicap.

  • progo35

    “In my experience, the PARENTS of the disabled, who are sick and tired of their children being treated like encumbrances and second-class citizens and who would like to be assured that once they’ve dropped dead of exhaustion that their children aren’t going to end up lonely and miserrable, warehoused in nursing homes with Alzheimer’s patients.”

     

    Actually, Crowepps, I was thinking of DISABLED PEOPLE OURSELVES who are sick and tired of being treated like encumbrances and second class citizens and who would like to be assured that we aren’t going to end up lonely and miserable, warehoused in nursing homes. Your assumption that it’s always the parents and not the disabled people themselves shows a paternalist attitude toward the disabled that seems to regard us as eternal children.

     

     

  • progo35

    Also, your “dropped dead of exhaustion” comment helps promote the stereotype that raising a disabled child is a horrible experience and that, by implication, disabled children are responsible for exhausting their parents to death. In short, the parents lives ended due to exhaustion from their kids, and not, say, due to old age.

  • progo35

    Also, your “dropped dead of exhaustion” comment helps promote the stereotype that raising a disabled child is a horrible experience and that, by implication, disabled children are responsible for exhausting their parents to death. In short, the parents lives ended due to exhaustion from their kids, and not, say, due to old age.

  • plume-assassine

    Um, there are some low-functioning disabled individuals who have the cognitive ability/awareness of a child, cannot hold a job, and do require constant care, and I think Crowepps was referring to those people and the worry that primary caretakers (parents) have about their adult children. A high-functioning disabled person with an autism spectrum disorder, or even a high-functioning person with Down’s syndrome is not at all likely to end up in a nursing home.

  • plume-assassine

    Raising children is exhausting and challenging enough as it is, and raising a disabled child adds to that challenge. It’s just the reality of the situation, and it’s not implying that the child is to blame at all. My father worked as a supervisor for disabled adults for several years and it was a very stressful job. It involved driving people to work and supervising them throughout the day to make sure they were on task and needs were met. There were varying levels of ability and sometimes he would get someone who was profoundly disabled to the point that they could not complete a simple task, and caring for that one person throughout the day interfered with him being able to help everyone else in the group. He has a good sense of humor and likes to help people, but after awhile it became too much for him to do. I can only imagine that it must be even harder for the parents.

  • crowepps

    I’m not responsible for how people interpret what I write.

    Any effective advocate has to grasp that as the one trying to elicit a change it is their responsibility to make their argument persuasive.  If you put your message out there and MOST people reading it not only don’t understand it, but are actually offended by it, I’ve got to say, it’s likely to need a little reworking.

     

    People here have been telling you that what you’re saying does not convince them to take the action you think is right, and won’t convince other people to take the action you think is right, and you have been responding that we are rejecting your message because we’re all bigots.  You might want to spend just a nanosecond considering that instead of us ALL being bigots, the problem just might be that your argument is crappy.

     

    I am not “attacking anyone who talks about the discrimination that disabled people face”, I am TRYING to get through to you that it DOES NOT WORK to complain about that discrimination endlessly as an argument to convince women not to abort.

     

    It is NOT EFFECTIVE to complain ‘everybody hates the disabled and is mean to them, let me share all the details of my suffering’ AT THE SAME TIME that you encourage someone to commit to a disabled child.  Certainly accusing the women of also being secret bigots isn’t convincing, because, hey, if EVERYBODY is a bigot, well then, why should they be ashamed of joining in?

     

    Your posts do not ‘sell’ the idea that the life of a disabled person is worthwhile.  Your posts do not ‘sell’ the idea that your OWN life is worthwhile.  You come across as hostile and suspicious, you talk mostly  about your negative experiences, and frankly the string of negative anecdotes is likely to lead a woman to believe her disabled child would constantly have to struggle against bigotry, marginalization, lack of resources and exclusion.

     

    To be absolutely clear, I am not saying that this is what the life of a disabled person is like, because I know people who are severely disabled and who nevertheless live integrated and happy lives.  I’m saying nobody would ever know they exist from anything in your posts and that is why they fail to convince.

  • progo35

    I understand that that’s who Crowepps was referring to, but I also get the impression that she assumes people with Down syndrome, for instance, will end up in a nursing home, and that assumption does not excuse her decision to ignore the efforts of disabled people in ensuring that they themselves don’t end up in the nursing home.  I have a student right now who is low functioning but he has thoughts and desires regarding what he wants from his life, but no one listens to him because they assume he can’t make any decisions himself. It’s a stereotype that needs to change.

  • crowepps

    Actually, I was thinking of this recent news article, about young disabled people ending up in nursing homes with Alzheimer’s patients.

    http://media-dis-n-dat.blogspot.com/2011/02/in-texas-growing-number-of-disabled.html

    And this article:

    Can children with Down’s Syndrome be independent?

    It’s an uncertain future for this generation of children with Down’s Syndrome, who are now outliving their parents

    http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article6086474.ece

    But mostly I was thinking about a friend of mine, whose son was born healthy and then developed brain tumors before reaching school age, resulting in many operations over the last 20 years, major intellectual and emotional deficits, the breakup of her marriage, the early death of the grandmother who literally wore herself out doing the alternate 12 hours shifts of care, and the fact that my friend looks twice her real age.  Taking care of someone with MAJOR deficits is exhausting.  When people talk about ‘disabled’ they’re not necessarily using you as the definition.

  • progo35

    All right, crowepps, how do you think this post

    (the one we’re commenting on) makes prospective parents of disabled kids feel? Or, how about the one about it being an example of “unconscienable cruelty” to carry a fetus with a disorder to term? Or how about the one that called the abortions Tiller peformed for fetal anomaly “mercy abortions” and said that that was the best course of action? (Not that it MIGHT be the best course of action for a particular woman, mind you, that it was THE BEST course of action, period…) Do you think that RH’s decision to feature realist mom’s journal entry, in which she said that she wishes she had been able to abort her daughter with down syndrome, but not to feature any entry that talks about being happy about carrying a disabled child to term,  portrays a balanced picture of the choices available to women in this position? Do you think these articles indicate to women that continuing the pregnancy is a valid choice? I don’t think so. I really, really think that most of the articles (with the exception of one from Scarleteen about sex ed and disability) portray disability as a horrible thing and abortion as the most moral decision out of all the ones available for everyone, regardless of situation. Ie, I think this site encourages women to have abortions if they find out about an anomaly, not to think carefully about what choice they would like to make. That termination is the favored and expected choice is quite clear. That bothers me. It bothers other disabled people who come on this site.

  • progo35

    All right, crowepps, how do you think this post

    (the one we’re commenting on) makes prospective parents of disabled kids feel? Or, how about the one about it being an example of “unconscienable cruelty” to carry a fetus with a disorder to term? Or how about the one that called the abortions Tiller peformed for fetal anomaly “mercy abortions” and said that that was the best course of action? (Not that it MIGHT be the best course of action for a particular woman, mind you, that it was THE BEST course of action, period…) Do you think that RH’s decision to feature realist mom’s journal entry, in which she said that she wishes she had been able to abort her daughter with down syndrome, but not to feature any entry that talks about being happy about carrying a disabled child to term,  portrays a balanced picture of the choices available to women in this position? Do you think these articles indicate to women that continuing the pregnancy is a valid choice? I don’t think so. I really, really think that most of the articles (with the exception of one from Scarleteen about sex ed and disability) portray disability as a horrible thing and abortion as the most moral decision out of all the ones available for everyone, regardless of situation. Ie, I think this site encourages women to have abortions if they find out about an anomaly, not to think carefully about what choice they would like to make. That termination is the favored and expected choice is quite clear. That bothers me. It bothers other disabled people who come on this site.

  • progo35

    Crowepps, the way to fix these issues is to advocate for better resoruces, just like people advocated for racial equality in the past. And, people with Down Syndrome CAN be effective advocates for themselves. I’m not thinking of myself, because I will certainly never end up in a nursing home when my parents die. But in my job, I advocate for people who COULD end  up in a nursing home, and the way to solve that problem is to advocate for their rights. I have never once thought to myself, “gee, you know, I wish these people’s mothers had aborted them.”  That, to me, encourages people to use that as a way to fix the problems disabled people encounter instead of, you know, addressing the actual problems. Moreover, disability rights organizations do a lot to advocate for disabled people on the diverse specturm of disabilities, including those who cannot speak for themselves.

  • progo35

    Crowepps, the way to fix these issues is to advocate for better resoruces, just like people advocated for racial equality in the past. And, people with Down Syndrome CAN be effective advocates for themselves. I’m not thinking of myself, because I will certainly never end up in a nursing home when my parents die. But in my job, I advocate for people who COULD end  up in a nursing home, and the way to solve that problem is to advocate for their rights. I have never once thought to myself, “gee, you know, I wish these people’s mothers had aborted them.”  That, to me, encourages people to use that as a way to fix the problems disabled people encounter instead of, you know, addressing the actual problems. Moreover, disability rights organizations do a lot to advocate for disabled people on the diverse specturm of disabilities, including those who cannot speak for themselves.

  • progo35

    Crowepps, the way to fix these issues is to advocate for better resoruces, just like people advocated for racial equality in the past. And, people with Down Syndrome CAN be effective advocates for themselves. I’m not thinking of myself, because I will certainly never end up in a nursing home when my parents die. But in my job, I advocate for people who COULD end  up in a nursing home, and the way to solve that problem is to advocate for their rights. I have never once thought to myself, “gee, you know, I wish these people’s mothers had aborted them.”  That, to me, encourages people to use that as a way to fix the problems disabled people encounter instead of, you know, addressing the actual problems. Moreover, disability rights organizations do a lot to advocate for disabled people on the diverse specturm of disabilities, including those who cannot speak for themselves.

  • crowepps

    I understand that that’s who Crowepps was referring to

    If you understand that’s who I was referring to, were you just being gratuitously insulting?  Or are you always COMPELLED to change the subject back to yourself?

  • crowepps

    Crowepps, the way to fix these issues is to advocate for better resoruces,

    Advocate away — but it might be as well to have a backup plan because the money isn’t there and isn’t going to be there.  The Republicans need to get rid of ‘big government’ without sacrificing the military necessary to keep their empire going and even though there isn’t sufficient money now, they insist social service budgets and disability payments and Medicaid all have to be slashed by at least 30%.  They’re perfectly willing to let people have rights, so long as they can pay for what they want out of their own pockets.

     

    This is pretty typical, although the uproar at least caused this one to quit:

    “A 91-year-old freshman Republican state lawmaker suggested New Hampshire’s mentally disabled should be shipped to Siberia and said he is unapologetic about the comment.

    State Rep. Martin Harty of Barrington said he was kidding around … “I was kidding with her and it kind of got away from me,” he said of the conversation. “It was a girl that wanted money for the crazy people, the people … a good percentage of the homeless people are mentally disturbed.”

    He said he didn’t know what to do with them.

    “I said maybe they can rent a spot in Siberia off of Russia,” he said.

    http://www.federalnewsradio.com/index.php?nid=29&sid=2302609

     

     

  • crowepps

    The post we’re commenting on is one where the fetus in question had Trisomy 18, a condition which causes: a malformed body, mental deficiency,  congential heart disease, congenital kidney disease, among other problems.  In addition, the MAJORITY of fetuses with this genetic defect die in utero and are stillborn.  Of those which are born alive “Fifty percent of infants with this condition do not survive beyond the first week of life. Some children have survived to the teenage years, but with serious medical and developmental problems.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002626/

     

    The post we are discussing is about how somebody who is NOT a doctor, based on the anecdotes told him by a colleague who is also NOT a doctor, felt entitled to PATRONIZE the woman by telling her she had made the wrong decision.  Because, you know, there was a one in a billion chance maybe a miracle would occur.

     

    And when people here commented on how vile his actions were, you felt entitled to scold RM for being ‘ableist’ and accuse her of wanting to kill her daughter so she could go to Paris?

     

    The Catholic Church is funding TONS of websites that attempt to convince women they are brood mares who ought to martyr themselves during the sacrament of pregnancy.  This site doesn’t have to assist them to kill women.

     

    And now you’re all ‘what about the possibility of hurting our FEELINGS’?  Really?  Considering how judgmental and abusive your posts here are, and how freely you insult all the other posters, what on Earth gives you some special exemption from getting your feelings hurt?  Wouldn’t treating you differently because of your disability be PATRONIZING?

  • arekushieru

    Let me lay it on the line for you.  I have a disability.  I also have a mental illness. Exacerbated by a verbal dysfunction and some form of both obsessive compulsive and anxiety disorders. Although I wasn’t diagnosed until just under a year ago, it’s caused my parents a lot of stress and headaches.  And it isn’t even a ‘severe disability’.  If my parents had been able to know, I’m sure they would have still carried me to term, but they would have been better able to prepare themselves mentally for the difficulties that lay ahead.  The difficulties being the financial, emotional AND physical supports, that just weren’t there in the small town I grew up in. (And this is in CANADA.)  Since my mom and dad have always had health issues but have only had to deal with medical treatment for those conditions in the past four years, they never knew what they were in for.  Some preparation, on either end, would have been nice, I’m sure.  

    And, someone can whine and wail all they want that the money is there if someone would just give it to us and wasn’t too biased to hand it over, but how long does it take before they realize that raising a child with a disability just costs more… when the people are completely destitute?

    THAT is the point.  The well-to-do couple were better prepared to deal with a child that wasn’t disabled, better than they were able to deal with a child that was.  The poor single woman was better prepared to deal with the children she already had, better than she was with one more mouth to feed.  BOTH made their decision on what they were financially, emotionally, mentally and physically able to handle.  But, as soon as someone brings a disability into it, you cry ableism.  

  • arekushieru

    And what is that supposed to change?  If the resources aren’t there, they aren’t there.  And it doesn’t make the achievement of dreams any easier, given that lack.

  • progo35

    I did NOT accuse RM of wanting to “kill her daughter.” In her diary post, “Special needs and Choice” she says that she wishes she had known about her daughter’s disability before her birth so that she could have had an abortion. I find that disturbing, although I believe her when she says that she loves her daughter. Hence, I recounted RM’s own statement to the effect that she wishes she had had the opportunity to end her pregnancy and prevent her daughter’s birth. That is not accusatory or abusive. And, again, you didn’t answer the contention of my last post, which is that this site does not provide resourcs for parents who do not wish to terminate pregnancies with a fatal diagnosis and desire to carry to term. That is doing potential parents a disservice. I’m not saying that the site should stop publishing articles liike the one above; what I am saying is that a little more balance in how disabilty and reproduction is portrayed would be appreciated.

  • progo35

    I understand that’s who you were referrring to, but it is my belief that you think that most people with genetic disabilities are like that.

  • crowepps

    Progo, it’s my belief that you think everybody in the whole world stereotypes and hates disabled people.  You are so insistent on reading this into every statement anybody else makes that I’m beginning to wonder if it’s projection.

  • crowepps

    What possible “resource” could be useful for parents “who do not wish to terminate pregnancies with a fatal diagnosis”?  Nobody that I know of is pressuring them to change their minds.  If they don’t wish to terminate the pregnancy they are entirely free to continue it.  Once they’ve heard the fatal diagnosis they are able to prepare for the delivery of a stillbirth or watching their infant die.  They would be far better off to look for assistance at Hospice or a grief group that a reproductive rights website.

     

    While it might be helpful to them to read the personal experience of other parents who had to make similiar decisions, it seems to me it would be really presumptuous for people who had NOT been in that situation to attempt to give any advice at all.  Parents in that situation need to do exactly what works for them and should never be pressured to meet the emotional needs or uphold the moral standards of strangers.

  • progo35

    While it might be helpful to them to read the personal experience of other parents who had to make similiar decisions, it seems to me it would be really presumptuous for people who had NOT been in that situation to attempt to give any advice at all.

     

    Right, people who haven’t  been in that situation probably shouldn’t write about it blindly, but then again, you seem to think it’s okay for people who haven’t been in that situation (as I assume Carol O.  hasn’t) to write about having an abortion in that case.  Plenty of people have carried problematic pregnancies to termand have valuable experiences to share that might help people make a decision about what is right for them. Has this site ever bothered to include an interview with or article written by one of those parents? Not that I’ve seen. I’m concerned that any prospetive parent who types “fatal diagnosis, abortion” or “disability, abortion” into their search engine will fall upon this site and read nothing but articles saying that the most responsible thing for them to do, regarldless of their feelings, is to terminate the pregancy. That is wrong.

     

    “Once they’ve heard the fatal diagnosis they are able to prepare for the delivery of a stillbirth or watching their infant die.  They would be far better off to look for assistance at Hospice or a grief group that a reproductive rights website.”

    Again, you’re feeding into the stereotype that reproductive rights just means abortion, and nothing else, when RR is supposed to encompass all the choices available. I think prospective parents might be aided by articles that do described the choice of carrying to term. I’m not suggesting that these articles should say that terminating is wrong, I’m saying that in addition to the articles about termination, there should be some about carrying to term. Otherwise this website isn’t really about defending reproductive rights in the case of a difficult diagnosis.

     

    Moreover, I’ve never ONCE seen any articles that talk about practical solutions or resources for women/families who are caring for a disabled child on this website. Such resources could help prosepective and current parents as they make these important reproductive decisions.

     

     

     

     

  • crowepps

    Moreover, I’ve never ONCE seen any articles that talk about practical solutions or resources for women/families who are caring for a disabled child on this website.

    Gee, articles with practical solutiosn or resources about caring for a disabled child would be really useful.  That’s why there are literally hundreds of them on the web already.

    Other articles that “really could help prosepective and current parents” are ones on budgeting, housework, balancing home and family, how to potty train and what colleges give the best scholarships, all of which are ALSO in hundreds of places on the web.

    Your personal obsession may not be covered here in the way you personally would prefer, but maybe that’s because you personally haven’t taken the time to write that article and send it in.  Instead of waiting around for somebody else, since you’ve surely got that list of resources already at your fingertips, why not share it?

  • therealistmom

    ‘Cause I would love to know where all these amazing resources are myself. I recently lost my job, and my ex is pushing the divorce through before he goes to Afghanistan, and I am ineligible for Medicaid for my depression medication because I have “too many resources”- two cars (one a gift from my parents to make sure I have a dependable vehicle, and the other I purchased for  my oldest to get to her college classes) and $1500 in the bank that is left over from my tax refund that I am trying to hold onto while I job hunt. It killed me, but I did apply for food stamps, and will get $350 a month for a family of four. I’ve re-opened my middle child’s SSI (she was ineligible for it for a while because I made too much, even when it was $2300 a month in child/spousal support) and hopefully will get a bit there to help out. Ideally I want to go to nursing school and actually be able to support everyone, but working out the how is a challenge.

     

    My oldest is heading to college in the fall, which I am ecstatic for, I want her to have much more of a future than I gave myself. That does, however, eliminate the person who helped out with taking care of the younger siblings when I worked, especially since their dad will be overseas.

     

    And no, I am still not handing out my location, though anyone with a working knowledge of the internet would probably have no problem finding me. The thing is, how are these services all “available”, yet “not being given out because of bias”? Either there are services specifically to assist people with disabilities and their familes, or there aren’t. With the Rethugs love of cutting family programs I just don’t see there being an overflow.

  • progo35

    Yes, and everyone I know was horrified by his remarks, which is why he was “encouraged” to abdicate his office. Moreover, this has to do with the fact that he is 91 years old and lived during the pro eugenic period of American history. At 91 years old, that puts his birth around 1920. That means that he grew up/came of age in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s when eugenics was all the rage. Obviously something made those imbedded beliefs reassert themselves into his speech. And, moreover, he’s using the word “defective” to refer to those with disabilities who he thinks shouldn’t be around. That is exactly what selective abortion accomplishes, even if the people having the selective abortion aren’t doing it for those reasons.

  • progo35

    Yes, and everyone I know was horrified by his remarks, which is why he was “encouraged” to abdicate his office. Moreover, this has to do with the fact that he is 91 years old and lived during the pro eugenic period of American history. At 91 years old, that puts his birth around 1920. That means that he grew up/came of age in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s when eugenics was all the rage. Obviously something made those imbedded beliefs reassert themselves into his speech. And, moreover, he’s using the word “defective” to refer to those with disabilities who he thinks shouldn’t be around. That is exactly what selective abortion accomplishes, even if the people having the selective abortion aren’t doing it for those reasons.

  • progo35

    http://www.projecteyetoeye.org/home.html

    This is a mentoring program that matches children with learning disabilities with a college student or adult with learning disabilities.

    http://www.nads.org/

    Information about Down Syndrome, including parenting, healthcare and housing resources.

    http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html

    Information on the Civil Rights office of the US Department of Education. They can intercede if a student’s rights have been violated at no cost to the student or his/her family.  I’ve actually used this resource myself.

    http://www.ndss.org/index.php?view=article&catid=55%3Aself-advocate-resource-&id=162%3Ajoztef&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content

    This link provides information on a fund that provides financial assistance to young adults with Down Syndrome who want to enroll in a postsecondary program and/or take classes.

    http://www.suite101.com/content/need-tuition-deductions-get-irs-tax-relief-a201597

    Provides information on  tax deductions for families caring individuals with special needs

    http://grantsforsinglemother.org/raising-your-special-needs-child-alone-there-is-help-out-there/

    Provides information on grants for single mothers who are parenting a child with special needs.

    http://ndss.org/images/stories/NDSSresources/ndss_npp.pdf

    The new parents package provides information about parenting a child with special needs as well as information on support groups and literature addressing the impact of Down Syndrome on the individual, nondisabled siblings, and marriage.

    http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/category.php?categoryid=3

    ASAN is run by autistic individuals and can be a great resource for autistic people who wish to advocate for themselves and family members who wish to assist in that advocacy.

    http://www.adapt.org/

    Adapt provides really good info about the Community Choice Act, Money Follows the Person, and other laws/programs to promote the well being and autonomy of adults with special needs.

    http://perinatalhospice.org/Resources_for_parents.html

    This page provides links to various hospice centers/programs who specialize in perinatal loss, bereavement resources, and funeral resources, including one with information on financial support.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23682263/ns/health-womens_health/

    This is a story about perinatal hospice and includes the stories of two families who chose to carry their pregnancies to term.

     

  • arekushieru

    Really?  Do tell….

  • crowepps

    I’m going to bookmark this so I can refer people to it.

  • progo35

    I meant to include at least one or more resources for people with psychiatric disabilities, so here is a good one:

    http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=empower_empowerlanding

     

     

  • progo35

    I meant to include at least one or more resources for people with psychiatric disabilities, so here is a good one:

    http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=empower_empowerlanding

     

     

  • elburto

    Who died and made you the spokesperson for PWD? I’m disabled, you don’t speak for me. Sure there are ableist reasons for abortion, but to me that’s a good thing. Better than being brought into the world by someone who wishes you’d never been born, and who thinks PWD are inferior. Or are you honestly saying you think ableists make perfect parents?

  • elburto

    Me again! Disability activist? Check! In favour of late-term abortion? Check! In favour of any woman ending any pregnancy for whatever reason she desires? Check!

    Progo – your days of using the ‘disabled community’ as a banner to hide under while advocating forced birth are OVER.

  • arekushieru

    Better than being brought into the world by someone who wishes you’d never been born, and who thinks PWD are inferior.

    THIS is the reason why I want to rate your post with a 10, elburto.  You are very awesome!

  • progo35

    El-If you’ll read my posts, you’ll see that I made general comments about the position of the disabled community on the issue of selective abortion. This isn’t to say, however, that everyone in the disabled community feels the same way. You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I sympathize with your concern about being born to ableist parents, however, I stand by my previous assertions regarding the ideological position of most disbility rights organizations/advocates. Opposition to the termination of a wanted pregnancy on the basis of disability is widespread in the disabled community despite concurrent widespread support for abortion rights. As I wrote, two excellent pieces on this issue can be found in the Disability Studies Reader. Both authors are pro choice women with disabilities and they tackle the issue of disability and abortion quite well. I encourage you to take a look. Peace out.

  • crowepps

    There have been a number of important, laudable changes to the way we talk about disability: it has taken decades, but the “social model” – which argued that the impairment itself wasn’t the problem, but rather, the failure of society to accommodate impairment – has had a huge impact, to the point where it is outrageous, now, to suggest that one’s quality of life would be worse in some physical conditions than in others. To say anything negative about disability is an insult to all disabled people. And yet, at the same time, it is absolutely self-evident that some people, with very little function and a lot of pain, have a poor quality of life.

    There is an understanding that a massive element of any conversation on the topic will remain unspoken, for reasons (essentially) of good taste and tact. But you cannot create a taboo, even one that’s well meant, without an attendant shame: so even though a good number of people do abort foetuses that are diagnosed with a serious disability, the fact that nobody will talk about that as a moral choice means that the act becomes more and more shameful, as the silence reinforces itself.

    This came about because of a bit of rhetorical extremism, where if you say, “I don’t want a child with Down’s syndrome” (for instance), then you are denigrating everybody who does have the condition, wishing them out of existence. It’s not totally irrational, but it’s so reductive that it may as well be.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/04/virginia-ironside-tv-euthanasia-abortion

  • julie-watkins

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/29/960663/-Paws-Up!

    Someone very happily pampering her service dog, to pay back for his great work. Recipes & a good discussion, made me smile.

     

  • crowepps

    It’s interesting to get the English take on the issue, particularly in view of the fact that the cost of future health care is not a consideration there:

     

    ARC briefing papers in response to proposed amendments to the Abortion Law

    …The majority of women opt into the testing process2.  Research evidence shows that most women are in favour of antenatal testing and of having the option to end the pregnancy if a significant abnormality is diagnosed.3 In a large scale study undertaken in 2002, only 5% of women thought it was always wrong to have a termination of pregnancy when: ‘if the child is certain to have a serious mental disability and will never live independently’ and just 6% felt it was always wrong: ‘if the child is certain to have a serious physical  disability and will never live independently’.4

    2.  Statistics show that the majority of women decide to end their pregnancy after the diagnosis of a condition that is ‘incompatible with life’ or likely to lead to significant disability.5

    http://www.arc-uk.org/arc-briefings-for-mps/

  • progo35

    Virginia Ironside is an ableist bigot who said that good mothers have abortions when they find out about a disabled fetus, and who says that she would put a pillow over a disabled child’s head to “put it out of its misery.” She hardly qualifies as an authority on this subject. You ought to know better than to cite her as such.

  • progo35

    I would also argue that this particular article from England indicates that prejudice does tend to motivate decisions to terminate previously wanted pregnancies. “Never live independently” is a projection when it comes to most disabilities. Children with Turners Syndrome, Down Syndrome, Hydrocephalus, Spina Bifida, Dwarfism, and many other conditions do grow up to lead fulfilling lives, and the availability of resources makes an even stronger case for the role of stereotypes in these decisions. That doesn’t make the parents bad people, especially since the medical profession seems trained to highlight the very worst case scenarios possible and encourage termination. Hence it isn’t suprising that many women find their doctors encouraging them to terminate their pregnancies rather than giving them a balanced overview of all the options available.

  • progo35

    I would also argue that this particular article from England indicates that prejudice does tend to motivate decisions to terminate previously wanted pregnancies. “Never live independently” is a projection when it comes to most disabilities. Children with Turners Syndrome, Down Syndrome, Hydrocephalus, Spina Bifida, Dwarfism, and many other conditions do grow up to lead fulfilling lives, and the availability of resources makes an even stronger case for the role of stereotypes in these decisions. That doesn’t make the parents bad people, especially since the medical profession seems trained to highlight the very worst case scenarios possible and encourage termination. Hence it isn’t suprising that many women find their doctors encouraging them to terminate their pregnancies rather than giving them a balanced overview of all the options available.

  • arekushieru

    Then, if you think they are encouraging ableism, you must think women who abort female fetuses because they are female are encouraging sexism (when there are a whole HOST of reasons why they abort based on gender, just as they do based on ability/disability).  Really, is it so difficult to figure out why your posts are so full of cognitive dissonance?

  • arekushieru

    If you think there is an availability of resources, I wish we could all live in your fantasy world.  However, if you don’t, then why do you think the doctor ISn’t ‘giving them a balanced overview of all the options available’?

    Have you heard of Tracy Latimer, Progo?  If not, I suggest you look her case up. 

  • crowepps

    Careful reading of the article, which is actually by Zoe Williams talking ABOUT Virginia Ironside and her views, shows that the correct quote would actually be:

    “If I were the mother of a suffering child – I mean a deeply suffering child – I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face . . . If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would.”

    suffering — deeply suffering — want to – really loved — in agony

     

    Don’t see anything there about would.  Don’t see anything there about disability.  Don’t see anything there about put it out of its misery.

    I think a lot of good mothers who truly love their children would agree that they might want to end that suffering even if they wouldn’t actually do it.

  • crowepps

    “Never live independently” is a projection when it comes to most disabilities.

    If the preceding statement is a “projection” then isn’t the following statement also a projection?

    Children with Turners Syndrome, Down Syndrome, Hydrocephalus, Spina Bifida, Dwarfism, and many other conditions do grow up to lead fulfilling lives

  • crowepps

    I felt terrible for her father, who loved her but was in an impossible position.

     

    One thing that seems pretty clear is that the “disability activist” position is one of entitlement.  No matter how disabling the handicap, no matter how unlikely it is there will be a good outcome, the fetus is ENTITLED to the use of its mother’s body no matter what risks that creates for her.  If the mother ends up with permanent damage or dies, that’s okay because the fetus was ENTITLED to a chance.  A child who survives the birth is ENTITLED to demand the mother provide full-time care 24/7 for years and years even if there’s little hope of the child ever being able to do for itself, and ENTITLED to the major share of the family resources even if that means the mother can’t have additional healthy children.  If adulthood is reached the disabled person is ENTITLED to have society provide an expensive support system so that they can lead a satisfying life.

     

    While that may all sound fair and reasonable to those who believe the disabled are entitled to get the equivalent of everyone else, it’s pretty clear the person who is going to be drafted willynilly into doing all that giving is likely to be more skeptical of how well it’s going to work out and whether it will be worthwhile.  Particularly if she isn’t particularly suited to be full-time nurse, disability advocate, special ed teacher and life coach, and isn’t willing to give short shrift to her husband, her other children, her career and any talents she might possess.

  • arekushieru

    And, it’s pretty clear, that the one who the decision is being made over, is the only one that is going to be affected by the decision.  Which I think still makes the ones who deny any such culpability in imposing this ‘life-affirming’ decision on others, rather selfish and greedy.

  • progo35

    Are,I absolutely do think that women who abort based on gender are encouraging sexism. If we had a test to determine sexual orientation, a woman aborting based on that would be encouraging homophobia. It’s all the same-prejudice acted out by an otherwise good individual.

  • progo35

    My God, Are. Are you kidding me? Didn’t I read that you’re a Christian? I guess I shouldn’t be shocked, since I know that other Christians aren’t any less prejudiced that other people. But, I guess that I just find sharing the Christian label with you embarassing. I guess you believe that even though Tracy Latimer was participating in public school programs and attended church and other activities with her family, her life was just a tragic mistake. If ONLY the doctor had told Tracy’s parents about her disability when she was in the womb! then her POOR FATHER wouldn’t have had to SUFFOCATE her to death in his car. BTW, that happened around the same time that Susan Smith killed her two small children in the US. I, as well as other disability advocates, find it fascinating that people exhibited horror at Smith’s actions but applauded Latimer for doing the same thing.

     

  • progo35

    My God, Are. Are you kidding me? Didn’t I read that you’re a Christian? I guess I shouldn’t be shocked, since I know that other Christians aren’t any less prejudiced that other people. But, I guess that I just find sharing the Christian label with you embarassing. I guess you believe that even though Tracy Latimer was participating in public school programs and attended church and other activities with her family, her life was just a tragic mistake. If ONLY the doctor had told Tracy’s parents about her disability when she was in the womb! then her POOR FATHER wouldn’t have had to SUFFOCATE her to death in his car. BTW, that happened around the same time that Susan Smith killed her two small children in the US. I, as well as other disability advocates, find it fascinating that people exhibited horror at Smith’s actions but applauded Latimer for doing the same thing.

     

  • progo35

    Yes, Crowepps, Tracy Latimer’s father definitely LOVED her, that’s why he put her in his car, turned on the motor,  and left her alone to die. What a loving, kind father he was!!

    And, again, you are promoting stereotypes in order to protect what you see as a feminist agenda. It is not feminist to promote the idea that bringing a disabled child into the world will ruin a woman’s life. It is not tolerant to promote the idea that disabled people will never take care of themselves. Sometimes I think that people on this website actually embrace these stereotypes as a way of making themselves feel better about their own prejudice. 

    As for entitlement, that argument is ridiculous because it could easily be turned around: parents are entitled to have a nondisabled child. They are entitled to their vision of what a perfect family life is. They are entitled to treat the developing life inside them like a piece of property. It’s not about entitlement, it’s about encouraging people to embrace human diversity, especially such traits that are expressed in their own children or potential children.

  • arekushieru

    You have no idea how prejudice is established, do you?  Such cognitive dissonance.

  • progo35

    I’ve read the article. Virginia Ironside also said that she supports the right sof parents to euthanize their children and that the only kind thing to do when faced with a disabled fetus is to abort it.

     

    And, last time I checked”agony” and “misery” where synonyms. She not only said she would like to kill the child to put it out of it’s misery, she  said that was a moral and acceptancle thing to do. So, she did say she would do that to put the child “out of it’s misery,” she just used the word “agony.” But, of course, you know that and are parsing words.

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, you didn’t suffer the pain she had to suffer.  She would have needed her legs to be amputated, without any painkillers.  What you would have forced her to face (just because she is disabled) is deSPICable and SICKening, which makes me wish I didn’t have to share the name of Christian with people like you.  But, like your usual greedy, selfish self, you project your own experiences onto others, without any empathy for the pain and suffering that may cause them.  

    Again, yes, I’m a Christian.  And obviously one with more compassion than YOU. 

  • arekushieru

    Your second paragraph isn’t disputing any of crowepps’ claims, btw….

  • progo35

    “You have no idea how prejudice is established, do you?”

    [Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Progo 35 falls on ground, laughing until she cries.]

  • arekushieru

    You are the one who is promoting stereotypes.  You are the one who is making a false paradigm of the disabiled vs the abled, when WE are simply taking into account the financial, emotional and caregiving investment required for each specific pregnancy/child.  Tracy Latimer was never going to be able to take care of herself.  

    She isn’t saying they’re entitled to a non-disabled child.  Read what I said above and maybe you’ll (finally) clue in.

  • arekushieru

    Same right back atcha, moron (I don’t use that word lightly, either).  Maybe you should read what I said in my most recent comment and you’ll actually realize why you’re the one who is living in a purely fallacious and hilarious world.

  • progo35

    Yeah, you didn’t suffer the pain she had to suffer.  She would have needed her legs to be amputated, without any painkillers.

     

    And where, pre tell, did you get this completely inaccurate statement? I’d like to know that source. Where did you read that she was going to have to have her legs amputated with NO PAINKILLERS? That is crap.  No, ARE, you are the embarassing one. Instead of acknowledging the equal worth of each of God’s children, you push death as the solution to the problems disabled people face. Heaven forbid society, the Church, or their parents actually WORK TO IMPROVE the society. Nope, that’s just too much work. Putting disabled people to sleep like rabid animals is SO much more compassionate.

  • arekushieru

    Um, yeah, I got it from the court documents.  Why didn’t you know about this.  It was related over and over in the media, that she was allergic to painkillers.  Oh, I guess you just wanted to ignore that, because that means you would have to show some ‘compassion’, which is just too troublesome for you, I guess. If you think ‘compassion’ means that someone must suffer so that another can live the way they wish to live, then God save me from ‘compassion’.

  • progo35

    Okay, so let me get this straight: Tracy Latimer was never going to be able to take care of herself, so it was okay to kill her? Also, you still haven’t cited where you got the “amputate without any painkillers” statement. Where did you read that? As for cluing in, yes, you calling me a moron is definitely going to  clue me in to how wrong my perspective is.

     

  • progo35

    I read what you wrote. I wasn’t moved.

  • progo35

    I read what you wrote. I wasn’t moved.

  • progo35

    Dude, I’ve studied the case extensively. There is no indication in anything I read, including the court documents that supports that assertion. Again, killing someone is NOT compassionate. It’s a way for society to get rid of disabled people so that it doesn’t have to provide appropriate services, come up with better painkillers, or do anything that would detract from our futile pursuit of a utopian world where no one is disabled.

     

  • progo35

     “A child who survives the birth is ENTITLED to demand the mother provide full-time care 24/7 for years and years even if there’s little hope of the child ever being able to do for itself, and ENTITLED to the major share of the family resources even if that means the mother can’t have additional healthy children.  If adulthood is reached the disabled person is ENTITLED to have society provide an expensive support system so that they can lead a satisfying life.”

    Oh, I see, so it’s like this: Parents are entitled to have the kind of children they want. It is rude of a disabled child to be born and “demand” their time and resources. I guess fathers are entitled to to ignore their children and not participate caring for them, since they aren’t mentioned in your scenario. Society is ENTITLED to give ALL its resources to its “healthy” members and not have to support any disabled people. Thanks for clearing that up, Crowepps.

  • progo35

    Both are projections-the fact is we have no idea how any one individual, disabled or nondisabled will develop. Nothing is for certain. A parent could give birth to a nondisabled child and the child could get hit by a car. The point is that children with disabilities do not grow up to have miserable lives en masse, which what most of the articles on this site (with a few exceptions) make it sound like.

     

  • julie-watkins

    Oh, I see, so it’s like this: Parents are entitled to have the kind of children they want. It is rude of a disabled child to be born and “demand” their time and resources.

    Actually yes: parents are entitled to choose (& within medical standards of the medical staff that help them). It’s only fair if the current society laws and custom demands it’s “fair” to expect women and the poor to be burdened more than men and families with more resources, then women should be able to decide whether they want to (attempt to) give the gift of life. The government and the community shouldn’t feel as if women and poor people are public property.

    If government really was “off the people, for the people” instead of for the purpose of “protecting property and increasing profits for the ruling class” then we could have a fair and equitable discussion of what or whether society should expect of pregnant women. Until then I won’t participate in increasing the oppression of already born people.

    And no, I don’t think I’m changing the subject.

  • crowepps

    The point is that children with disabilities do not grow up to have miserable lives en masse,

    That depends on the severity of the disability.  When the discussion is about prenatal diagnosis of SERIOUS disabilities, and the likely impact of those SERIOUS disabilities, it’s kind of ingenuous to talk about “children with disabilities” and how they “grow up”. 

    There isn’t much likelihood that some of the children we’re talking about here will grow up.  As one example, the MAJORITY of anencephalic fetuses are stillborn and most of those who are born alive die within a week.  It is extremely rare to have one survive for a month.

     

    In that case you are talking about leaving women with no choice but to continue growing a nonviable fetus larger, pointlessly, knowing that every ounce it gains will make it more difficult to remove its corpse after it dies and that attempting delivery is more dangerous for the woman than having it removed through abortion.  Because IN YOUR OPINION people who are disabled MIGHT get their feelings hurt if women in that situation shorten the inevitable process.

     

    But see, even though you have a disbility, in this particular case, the issue is not about YOU.  The issue is instead about the woman actually in the situation who has to make a decision.  If you didn’t insist on elbowing your way into the exam room and demanding that she justify herself, you wouldn’t even know about her decision.  If you didn’t publicize her decision, people who are disabled wouldn’t know about it either.

  • arekushieru

    Because you have no ability to comprehend, as your other posts indicate.

  • crowepps

    My point, which you missed, is that you are looking at this from the point of view of the disabled person, and you are vesting 100% of the entitlement there, and you are totally ignoring the fact that the other people involved in the situation also have entitlements.

     

    If a diagnosis is made at 12 or 16 or 20 weeks, the woman is ENTITLED to decide that this particular pregnancy has gone disastrously off track and that she chooses to not invest more months, physical effort and monies in a nonviable fetus but instead to shortcut this particular attempt, withdraw the use of her body, and start over.  It’s HER body, she’s the one who gets to decide how it shall be used.

     

    I don’t think “Parents are entitled to have the kind of children they want”, but I certainly don’t think it’s realistic to ASSUME that women carrying a nonviable fetus have an obligation to grow them as large as possible before they die, especially when doing so extends and increases their physical risk.

     

    I don’t think “It is rude of a disabled child to be born and “demand” their time and resources”.  I find it kind of puzzling you would even use a word like ‘rude’ because that implies intent.  The fetus doesn’t deliberately develop a disability; that just happens through the statistical odds of reproduction.  If the parents cannot or don’t want to further invest their time and resources, they would have the legal option of leaving the infant at the hospital, surrendering it to the State and walking away.  Many people do exactly that.

     

    I don’t think “fathers are entitled to to ignore their children and not participate caring for them” but that’s sure been my experience of reality over the years that’s what the fathers feel entitled to do, and I’m well aware that the birth of a disabled child increases the risk of the parents divorcing and custody ending up with the mother.

     

    I don’t think “Society is ENTITLED to give ALL its resources to its “healthy” members and not have to support any disabled people” because that wouldn’t be the kind of society in which I would care to live.  If every woman who didn’t want to continue her pregnancy aborted, there would still be disabled babies born, because many woman choose to continue, and most people who are disabled became disabled after birth through accident or illness.  Those fortunate enough to be able to work should support those who cannot, but here has to more givers than there are getters or the whole system will break down.

     

    I don’t agree with you that the woman should be bullied or forced into continuing the pregnancy when she doesn’t want to, or lobbied before she makes her decision by someone who has their own psychological/religious ax to grind, or harassed and shamed if she doesn’t make the ‘right’ decision (in their opinion), because I don’t see any advantage to society in producing the maximum possible number of stillbirths and severely disabled infants.   I’m well aware that resources are scarce, that the current political climate makes it clear resources are going to become MORE scarce, and that whatever is available would need to be divided into smaller and smaller portions.

  • arekushieru

    Um, no.  They were two different points, just in the same paragraph, because you put them in the same paragraph oRIGinally, OBviously.  Oy…. I was saying that people don’t base their decisions on someone’s ability OR disability.  They base them on the level of care that is required and that they are able to provide, especially when the one receiving that care can’t revoke or deny consent to it, anyways.  Going by YOUR ‘logic’, because an infant requires more care than an adult independant, giving an infant up for adoption is discriminating against infants.  (Seriously???)  I would provide links if I had been the one to make an initial claim that Tracy suffered in pain.   My claim was that there wasn’t resources available for the family to deal with the myriad difficulties that Tracy’s condition presented.  You ASSumed that I was talking about the way Tracy died.  So, by default, your claim was that she wasn’t feeling pain.  So, please provide the links that you’ve said you’ve gone over and hold no evidence that she was in pain and/or was allergic to painkillers.  Then I will provide you with the links that I’ve read that say the exact opposite.

    Btw, have you considered the reason that you protest the label, might be because the truth hurts? 

     

  • crowepps

    Actually, her response was that your post didn’t trigger an EMOTIONAL reaction, which makes sense because her posts are all about how things make her FEEL.  Which is pretty typical of someone whose policy position arises out of sentimentality and emotionalism and religiosity.  Which is why it is impossible to have a productive exchange of posts with those people.

    You post some facts, they dispute the facts, you post some links, and they break into hysterical sobs and scream ‘you hate me, you all hate me and wish I was dead!  Well, GOD loves me and you’ll all go to hell.’

    Sigh.

  • arekushieru

    Ending someone’s suffering isn’t compassionate, just because it happens to kill them?  Wow, you have NO understanding of what compassion means, either, do you?

  • arekushieru

    She also, apparently, believes that every other child who is disabled is entitled to have another stand up for them, whether or not this is what the latter wishes or desires.

  • crowepps

    I think the disabled are most likely to be able to represent each other, since they share a group experience, assuming they share similar disabilities.  There are, of course, HUGE differences between the experience of having a learning disability and that of being cognitively impaired and that of having an extremely serious disability like anencephaly.  Personal experience with one wouldn’t necessarily give one any insight into the others.

  • arekushieru

    I’m not disagreeing with that.  I am however discussing this sense of entitlement that Progo seems to believe that children who are disabled should have.

  • progo35
  • crowepps

    I do understand her point that disabled children should not be discriminated against, that it is unreasonable to make them feel inferior, that they should not have to apologize for existing and needing what they need.  Unfortunately, she seems to be confusing that with ‘should never have their feelings hurt’, which is an impossibility, and with ‘should get whatever they need’ which is not the level at which anyone else is provided for.

     

    Someone who has felt discriminated against and undervalued because of her disability is going to be really sensitive to rejection, but the thing she’s not grasping is that children who are not disabled also get their feelings hurt on a regular basis, feel discriminated against for one reason or another, resent being undervalued, don’t necessarily receive what they need and are rejected.  If she doesn’t want the disabled treated differently than everyone else, they’ll have the same negative experiences everyone does; to insist the disabled are unique special cases who have to be protected from all harm is equally a manifestation of prejudice.

     

    I’d note as well there have been lots of cases of elderly couples making pacts to save each other from nursing homes and what they see as the horror of dependence, where one elderly spouse kills the other or they commit suicide together, and nobody accuses them of hating each other or being prejudiced against old people.  Instead it’s called “mercy killing” and people defend the surviving spouse.

  • arekushieru

    Um, you’re giving me links to sites that are already obviously biased?  Guess that means I don’t have to provide any links.

  • crowepps

    “Agony: the suffering of intense physical or mental pain” OR  “intense pain of mind or body : anguish, torture” OR “extreme physical or mental suffering”

    versus

    “Misery: 1 wretchedness of condition or circumstances.

    2. distress or suffering caused by need, privation, or poverty.

    3. great mental or emotional distress; extreme unhappiness.

    4. a cause or source of distress.”

    It seemed to me her quote was pretty clearly referring to “intense pain of mind or body : anguish, torture” and in those circumstances, sitting there helpless and listening to the moans and screams and crying, yeah, that pillow and an end to the suffering would indeed be tempting.  Which isn’t at all the same thing as PREFER or WOULD, which you are reading into the quote so you can conclude with BAD mother!  Since good mothers apparently have NO PROBLEM sitting by placidly and ignoring their child’s pain.

     

    Seriously, compared to UNAVOIDABLE “intensive pain, anguish, torture”, yeah, abortion seems like a kindness to me as well.

  • lauraj400
  • progo35

    ….just because it happens to kill them?

    Yeah, I do object to that tiny tiny detail.  Killing someone is NOT necessary to alleviate their suffering. I am checking with my sources, as I can’t find anything that says anything about her having her legs amputated with no painkillers, (just that she was supposed to have surgery to fix her hip a few days after he killed her.) I simply don’t believe that doctors would operate on someone without giving them something (perhaps novacaine or some other non-narcotic painkiller) to numb the area being operated on, as doctors will not operate on someone who is moving around, struggling, or moaning/crying out in pain. It would be unsafe to do so.

  • lauraj400

    The medacation problem was that they were afaid of mixing sedatives with her epalipsy medicine.

  • crowepps

    Killing someone is NOT necessary to alleviate their suffering

    Depends on the cause of the pain and the likelihood of it ending.  When my dad was dying of cancer, he was being given dangerously high doses of morphine even though we all understood that they would eventually kill him.  Because he was ALREADY suffering from a fatal disease, and alleviating his suffering was considered more important.

     

    Was there a chance this child would recover?  Was she in pain?  Was her pain going to increase?  Did he father feel that her suffering would just go on and on and on without end?  If the child wasn’t going to be in pain, her doctors certainly don’t seem to have done a very good job of communicating that to her father.  You’re very scornful of the fact that he just plain couldn’t stand it any more, and seem to feel that HIS suffering doesn’t matter either.

     

    You sure have a high tolerance for other people suffering.

  • progo35

    My God. Obviously some people on this site just wants abortion in the case of fetal anomaly and don’t want people with disabilities to advocate for themselves or feel any pride in their identities. Otherwise, someone wouldn’t have given my resource list a bad rating and made it difficult for people to read. Or, people just look at the individual’s name and give a bad rating no matter what the person says. Really, really mature, people.

  • progo35

     

    http://www.projecteyetoeye.org/home.html

    This is a mentoring program that matches children with learning disabilities with a college student or adult with learning disabilities.

    http://www.nads.org/

    Information about Down Syndrome, including parenting, healthcare and housing resources.

    http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html

    Information on the Civil Rights office of the US Department of Education. They can intercede if a student’s rights have been violated at no cost to the student or his/her family.  I’ve actually used this resource myself.

    http://www.ndss.org/index.php?view=article&catid=55%3Aself-advocate-resource-&id=162%3Ajoztef&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content

    This link provides information on a fund that provides financial assistance to young adults with Down Syndrome who want to enroll in a postsecondary program and/or take classes.

    http://www.suite101.com/content/need-tuition-deductions-get-irs-tax-relief-a201597

    Provides information on  tax deductions for families caring individuals with special needs

    http://grantsforsinglemother.org/raising-your-special-needs-child-alone-there-is-help-out-there/

    Provides information on grants for single mothers who are parenting a child with special needs.

    http://ndss.org/images/stories/NDSSresources/ndss_npp.pdf

    The new parents package provides information about parenting a child with special needs as well as information on support groups and literature addressing the impact of Down Syndrome on the individual, nondisabled siblings, and marriage.

    http://www.autisticadvocacy.org/modules/smartsection/category.php?categoryid=3

    ASAN is run by autistic individuals and can be a great resource for autistic people who wish to advocate for themselves and family members who wish to assist in that advocacy.

    http://www.adapt.org/

    Adapt provides really good info about the Community Choice Act, Money Follows the Person, and other laws/programs to promote the well being and autonomy of adults with special needs.

    http://perinatalhospice.org/Resources_for_parents.html

    This page provides links to various hospice centers/programs who specialize in perinatal loss, bereavement resources, and funeral resources, including one with information on financial support.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23682263/ns/health-womens_health/

    This is a story about perinatal hospice and includes the stories of two families who chose to carry their pregnancies to term.

    http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=empower_empowerlanding

     Resources for people living with depression and other mental illnesses.

  • progo35

    Right, so they could either give her painkillers that weren’t sedatives, or perhaps they could have suspended her seizure meds the day before surgery.

  • progo35

    “You’re very scornful of the fact that he just plain couldn’t stand it any more, and seem to feel that HIS suffering doesn’t matter either.”

    Crowepps, just answer this question:

    Are you of the opinion that parents who ‘just can’t stand it anymore’ should be able to kill their children?  Are they entitled to kill their children so because ‘their suffering matters’? Yes or no?

    You sure have a high tolerance for other people dying.

     

  • lauraj400

    they said somewhere that they had shots they could give her,but because the dad had a thing about needles,he nixed it.I have CP myself so I learned all I could about the case.I saw the parents on TV once and They left me cold.

  • arekushieru

    Okay, Progo, now I’m beginning to understand where you’re coming from, here.  When I referred to painkillers, I meant that they couldn’t give her painkillers after the procedure was done, because, yes, it would have interacted negatively with her epilepsy or her other medications, not because she was allergic as I originally claimed (I actually knew that, but hadn’t made the  necessary connections that I should have).  Her surgeries were never final solutions, though, and her epilepsy constantly ensure that she would have to go in and seek new interventions, each one more invasive than the last. 

  • arekushieru

    I would prefer to have a high tolerance for people dying than I would for people suffering (as you obviously do).

  • arekushieru

    ..But painkillers after the fact.  Plus, suspending her seizure medication would put her in MORE danger of breaking her bones, either way.  I have a cousin with epilepsy.  Her seizures began as SOON as she went off of her medication, and didn’t stop until she went BACK on her medication.  And they weren’t nearly as harsh as Tracy’s seizures. SO sorry.

  • progo35

    Actually, Are, we hadn’t established that. You said that she would have had to have had her legs amputed below the knee without painkillers. That made it sound as if you believed that they were going to perform surgery on her without any kind of pain relief.

  • progo35

    Let me clarify the “dying” part for you:

    You and Crowepps seem to have a high tolerance for people being murdered as long as they are disabled and their loved ones say that they “couldn’t take it anymore.”

  • progo35

    Oh, you are going to keep me from dialoguing on this issue everywhere I go by showing up to twist my argument as being one of “forced birth” every time I make it? I doubt it. And, like I said, opposing selective termination is not synomynous with being pro life or being against late term abortion in general. It’s about being morally or ethically opposed to the discrimination inherent in having an abortion when the baby was previously wanted and then found to have a disability. When I talk about selective abortion from a disability rights standpoint, I am not coming at the issue from a pro life standpoint, I am coming from a pov that most people in the disabled community share-that selective termination is troublesome, even for those of us who support a woman’s right to make such a decision at any point in her pregnancy. Ie, pro life disability activists and pro choice disability activists tend to agree on this one, El. You are in the minority if you think that terminating a wanted pregnancy on the basis of disability has no relevance to that person’s conception of human diversity.

  • progo35

    Hmm…I don’t remember saying “I wish I was dead.” Could you please cite that, Crowepps? Because it seems l spend a lot of time saying that I LIKE BEING ALIVE, and so do OTHER PEOPLE who have disabilities, that we have just as much right to BE ALIVE as YOU, and that that is WHY the conceptions of disability that make up the majority of the posts on fetal handicap are backward.

  • progo35

    I also don’t remember saying that anyone was going to Hell or mentioning Hell in my posts. Could you cite that, Crowepps?

  • arekushieru

    Yeah, they couldn’t take the other individual’s suffering, anymore.  That you completely ignored that part, speaks volumes about you, SADly.

  • arekushieru

    Uh, yeah, I was referring to a previous post I made, more than anything.  And YOU are going to lecture ME on the use of words, when YOU were the one who told crowepps that misery and agony meant the same thing (when they clearly didn’t)?  Although, that IS actually what I meant, from the beginning.  SO sorry.

  • arekushieru

    And you have yet to prove that this is the case.  The point that elburto was trying to make that you obviously missed.

  • progo35

    I want to clarify something:

    When I talk about selective abortion being a form of prejudice, I am not advocating my pro life views. I am advocating my understanding of human diversity as consistent with my training as a disability rights advocate. My aim in such arguments is not to get people to oppose abortion, but to oppose or think twice about aborting a wanted pregnancy based solely on fetal anomaly. In short, I expect the majority of feminists in the disability rights movement to agree with me. If I write something like, “The fact that human fetuses kick, hiccup, and have organ systems undermines the position that the women have the moral right to end the lives of such fetuses,” I am advocating a pro life position and do not expect feminists in the disability rights movement to agree with me. So, I am not trying to advocate “forced birth” or what I would refer to as a pro life philosophy, via my arguments concerning selective abortion. That is all.

  • arekushieru

    My aim in such arguments is not to get people to oppose abortion, but to oppose or think twice about aborting a wanted pregnancy based solely on fetal anomaly.

    Progo, that makes much more sense.  And something I can’t really disagree with.  Unfortunately, I’m not sure that what you believe is based solely on fetal anomaly is the same as what we would regard as solely based on a fetal anomaly.

  • progo35

    So the SAY. People who kill the disabled always SAY it’s all about the individual’s suffering, and not THEM. Well, it is about THEM, not the disabled person. I think Robert Latimer did what he did because he felt entitled to move on with his new baby and not have a disabled daughter. I don’t think he did it because he cared about his daughter.

  • arekushieru

    Hmm, so you are in a better position to say what she felt than her parents, her primary caregivers?  Wow, who made you judge, jury and God?  Probably yourself, I bet.  Besides, constant breaking of bones ISn’t painful?  PLEASE.  I’ve FRACtured my wrist, ONCE, that was painful enough.  Derrr….

  • progo35

    Listen to yourself. Who the fuck made Robert Latimer judge, jury, and God? You think that I am playing Judge jury and God by expressing my opinion on a website, but that RL wasn’t doing that by deciding he had the right to play God and take his daughther’s life? If we bought your argument, we would have to bless the action of parents taking their children’s lives as long as they alleged that it was in their children’s best interest.

  • crowepps

    Are you of the opinion that parents who ‘just can’t stand it anymore’ should be able to kill their children?

    Should be ABLE to?  No.  Is it understandable that it sometimes happens?  Yes.  Should somebody be paying some attention to just how close to that edge those parents have been driven?  Oh, golly, why do that, since after all it’s their DUTY to give and give and give until they finally crack, and then when they do crumble they’re reviled as  selfish and evil.

    Are they entitled to kill their children so because ‘their suffering matters’?

    Entitled?  No.  Suffering themselves and being unable to stand watching their child suffer any longer might be their motivation but then the question shouldn’t be why can they no longer stand but why is child left to suffer?  Why are they forced to watch the child suffer?

     

    You don’t seem to grasp just how overwhelming it is for a couple of total amateurs, with no medical education, no training in nursing, no learned skills to deal with the machinery and medication and interventions, to be thrust into the role of full-time caretaker for a child who massively handicapped. 

    The parents don’t get to go home after 12-hour shifts, or have the ability to call in a sub who can fill in when they’ve got the flu.  They work 24/7, no matter how they feel, and provide care that is physically exhausting and emotionally distressing, and are very soon totally out of their depth.  Aside from that, there’s the necessity to give up just about every other interest in their life, including being good parents to their other children, to focus solely on the futile task of caring for a child who will never get any better.

     

    Does that elicit any sympathy from you?  Nope, not at all.  If they would just be positive about “ending up in Holland” they wouldn’t be so gloomy.  For you, everything is black and white.  If the child is disabled, no matter what the disability, no matter what the severity, abortion is always based in prejudice, and you’re entitled, from your position of moral superiority, to deliver self-righteous lectures to strangers.  Once the child is born, the child’s suffering doesn’t matter, the parents’ suffering doesn’t matter, the expense doesn’t matter, the exhaustion doesn’t matter, the pointlessness doesn’t matter, because the only IMPORTANT thing is how the actions of all those people actually involved make YOU feel.

  • plume-assassine

    I personally believe that what Robert Latimer did was wrong. (I don’t believe that it is wrong for a suffering, terminally ill, or profoundly disabled adult to choose to end their life on their own terms.) But Tracy was not an adult and didn’t have any say in the matter of her own life, nor was she capable of communicating her wishes to anyone.

    I think this thread has really veered off-track. The article is about late-term abortion in the case of Trisomy 18, a fatal condition, not a disability like cerebral palsy. Choosing to abort a non-viable fetus is not in any way similar or comparable to euthanasia or “mercy killing” a 12-year-old child.

    I don’t think it matters whether late-term abortion (after hearing a troubling diagnosis) is ableist or not. What matters is that society do all it can to enrich the lives of disabled people. You know… advocating for actualized persons instead of potential. The reason for abortion does not matter to me because I trust women to do what is right for her body and potential child. I don’t think women need to justify their decision to society, or to disabled individuals, whether they choose abortion or birth. Coercing women to give birth to non-viable fetuses or fetuses with serious genetic conditions does not help or affect the disabled community, and will not get rid of prejudice.

  • crowepps

    I agree Latimer was wrong.  I’m just not sure that his motives were as selfish and ignoble as Progo insists her incredible psychic powers reveal to her.

     

    I also agree with you that coercing women to do anything, whether it’s to give birth or to abort, is wrong.  The most important thing in a situation like that is the emotions and decision of the people who are actually involved, not the moralizing of on-lookers who have never had a similar experience.

     

    One thing I’ve seen now in several comments on this issue by doctors — when there is a hard and fast timing set by law after which abortions cannot be performed, parents may be forced into a hasty decision to abort because of time pressure, when if they had more time available to them in which further testing could be done or they could get a second opinion, or get advice from disability groups, they might choose differently.  This is certainly a decision no one should be forced into making in a hurry because some people’s speculation about possible ‘pain’ when that is not supported by the majority of the research on fetal development.

  • arekushieru

    Or we would have to leave someone living in suffering, as long as YOU alleged it was in that child’s best interest?

  • arekushieru

    I disagree with this opinion, somewhat, because that leaves open the question, is it okay to force others to suffer when they can’t speak for themselves? Are they to be left to suffer just because they were born in a place where euthanasia isn’t allowed?  It wasn’t just Tracy’s parents who noticed she was in pain.  It was her doctors, the people at the group home she often visited and certainly the knowledge of the fact that broken bones don’t feel pleasurable in any way shape or form.  Playing God also means choosing who lives, although it seems to be something that Progo doesn’t/can’t understand.  

    The thread has veered off-track as threads are often wont to do, whether here or elsewhere.  Although I really don’t think it has gone all that far. However, that is something that I would agree should be left up to the mods to decide.      

  • arekushieru

    Um, she wasn’t saying that you wished you were dead, but that you say that others wish you were dead.  

  • progo35

    Prove what is the case? That the majority of disability advocates oppose selective terminations? That’s everywhere, from the NY Times to the National Down Syndrome Society to the Disability Studies Reader, to No Pity: People with Disabilities forging a new civil rights movement. El is welcome to her/his opinion, but it is in the minority.

  • julie-watkins

    I’m glad Alicia Hemple was able to go public to the extend she has to show actual affects of a bad abortion law. I think the ‘punishing Latimer’s lack of remourse’ is part of the same spectrum: state/society says what you MUST do, … but the state is fickle about helping. When the fetus is doomed, it’s torture for the sake for furthering the ‘heroism of motherhood': no matter the suffering, you must follow the true way.

    In one of the links Propgo posted there was a list of parents who killed their handicapped children; there’s a concern that the visibility of Latimer’s case caused an increase of the rate of this crime. Multiple cases are murder/suicide, which is telling. Help was needed but wasn’t there. … Are their government study groups that take this as a warning sign of concern that overwhelmed parents need help? I would hope so, but it’s probably uneven, local & low level (as usual) and the upper levels aren’t so concerned. On the upper levels, the state seems more interested in punishing parents who resist their assigned role rather than getting to the root of the problem. 

    If there are 70% of Canadians who support what Latimer did, I think that’s an indication that people want to think they’ve got an option if they’re put into a case of involuntary servitude they can’t handle any more.

    I wonder what the response would be if or is when a care-giver calls 911 and says ‘my parent/relative/spouse/child is without needed care. Come rescue that person and arrest me and put me in jail, I can’t any more.’

    I think it’s a much worse problem that it’s apparently OK for govenments to declare ‘budget crisis!’ and ‘we can’t afford it!’ on obvious matters of public good, but can spend so much money on prisons and police, and handouts to the rich.

  • lauraj400

    this case.Do you have links that say her legs were going to be amptated?

  • lauraj400

    not constantly breaking bones.

  • crowepps

    Here’s a link for you:

     

    http://www.google.com/

  • arekushieru

    Really, do you have an unbiased article for that?  Because your last article was very biased.  I’m not looking for an article with unbiased perspectives, but an article that is unbiased on this matter, in and of itself.  And, as I said, your last post was CLEARly not one such.

  • arekushieru

    Okay, here’s a more general topic, relating to both Tracy Latimer and the one of this thread.

    On the upper levels, the state seems more interested in punishing parents who resist their assigned role rather than getting to the root of the problem. 

    So… nothing to do with discrimination against people who are disabled, as Progo claimed.  Rather, it seems like the government is focused on the parents and judging them by what they are not willing to do or sacrifice.

    I would hope so, but it’s probably uneven, local & low level

    Julie, with regards to Tracy Latimer, it would have been very difficult to get federal funding and a lot of the cities are relatively poor, in regards to social safety nets.  As far as the fetus discovered to have trisomy 18, could it possibly be a similar thing?

  • lauraj400

    I call it parenting.Do you think anyone shoiuld have to right the off someone any  time they want?My sister lives with me and helps me.I have anyways told her there are 2 doors in our house,she is free to go out either one any time she wishes.

  • lauraj400

    bias?I give up,the only news articles you will accept are the ones in favor of whAT RL did.THE last link was to the local newspaper.

  • arekushieru

    Um, you have a weird definition of parenting, then.  Almost killing yourself in order to raise someone else, is NOT parenting.

  • arekushieru

    Um, a news article written from a very biased perspective.  The title of it says it all.  Sorry that you can’t see that.

  • arekushieru

    Nope.  Prove that this IS about discrimination.  Or didn’t you read my last reply to you on the second page…?

  • progo35

    Oh, these poor, poor caretakers…they must have been so stressed out!

    http://www.aolnews.com/2011/03/30/police-disabled-utah-woman-christina-harms-tortured-crucified/

    I guess they did the right thing…Christina was never going to be able to take care of herself anyway./sarc.

  • lauraj400

    parent should have a right to kill their kid,no questons asked?What is your idea of a paren?

  • lauraj400

    is alive and well.

  • arekushieru

    No, you advocate for the torture and harm of individuals, especially if they’re disabled.  No wonder Eugenics is alive and well.

  • arekushieru

    …How you get from a parent is not someone who kills themselves in order to raise a child, to a parent has a right to kill a child with no questions asked…?  I’ll be waiting, although I won’t be holding my breath.

  • julie-watkins

    Not sure what to do in a situation of not much resources locally and poor cities … but it seems a general indication of Same Old, Same Old.

    I don’t know if the wealth gap is so large in Canada as it is in USA, but it seems a general condition of the world, where the large internationals are harvesting all the profit and resources that they can.

    If government really cared & wasn’t mostly about protecting property, things would be different. Things *should* be different.

  • julie-watkins

    by accident or illness. What if your sister got very ill, or your child, or both?

     

    I think it’s “servitude” if the burden is more on some households than others — if help is denied and the caretaker would get in legal trouble if something happens when s/he is sleeping or at work, and doesn’t have resources to do something different that would have keep the bad from happening.

     

    I think it’s “servitude” if the burden is more on some households than others — if help is denied and the hours of caretaker work plus hours of paid work for shelter & food is 14-18 hours per day, leaving little or no personal time.

  • lauraj400

    call sevitude I CALL  parenting,when you have a kid,you take care of it.Anyway,Tracy did not live AT home.She had been staying at a temp group home and her parents had been told she WAS going to A pernament placement.I have no children,when my sister needs to hospitalized,as she does,form time to time,we muddle throu.

  • julie-watkins

    I’m not defending what any specific parent did or didn’t do that latter got into the newspapers.

    I’m talking about what social services should be available to people or families who, through illness or accident, have burdens much heavier than most other people and families and who need help from government and society and government denies help. When help is denied and care-taking + working-for-pay hours add up to over 14 hours a day, for instance, I think it’s wrong that governement denies help … so that’s a situation I would call “servitude”.

  • arekushieru

    Especially when parenting (specifically motherhood, since most of the caregiving responsibilities usually fall on the woman, even in typically egalitarian households) goes uncompensated.  You have a role that requires enormous amounts of time, energy and labour to be invested even under normal circumstances, yet any role that specifically requires less amounts of either, is duly compensated.  This is where the cognitive dissonance comes in.    

  • lauraj400

    in paying parents to take care of their own children.

  • arekushieru

    I didn’t say paying, I said compensated.  And, if you don’t believe in that, then you don’t/CAN’T respect the role that parents take on.

  • progo35

    First of all, I never said that, either, and moreover, Crowepps edited that statement to read “you wish I were dead” rather than what it originally said, which was, “I wish I were dead.” Moreover, again, I have never brought up the topic of hell.

     

  • progo35

    Excuse me, Are, but did you BOTHER to read that story? The woman, who had fetal alcohol syndrome, was tortured and hung crucifixion style by her “overworked” caregivers. And laura and I are the ones advocating torture? When we excuse the behavior of murderous caregivers because they were overworked, we sanction systematic social approval of abusing the disabled.

  • lauraj400

     

     

  • lauraj400

     

     

  • lauraj400

    disabled should THE at the mercy of their caregivers.IN my area THERE is a woman going to jail for 20 years because she and 5 friends literly beat to death,over a 6 six week period,the retarded woman she was living with and taking care of.The coraner said almost every bone in the woman’s body was broken.Believe it or not the woman tried to stayed out of jail because she is a single mother.With a mother like that the kid’s safer with her in jail.

  • crowepps

    I didn’t see this request, sorry it took so long to respond –

     

    Progo, I was not quoting you.  The POINT of my statement was my frustration with the fact that when I and others disagree with you, you get all emotional and insist that the reason we don’t agree with you is because we LIKE to “push” abortion on people and hate the disabled and we’re all bigots and, boo hoo, nobody should ever talk negatively about disabled people because they feel really bad when people say mean things on the internet and it discourages parents from continuing pregnancies.  That makes it very VERY difficult to have a discussion.  It doesn’t seem to have ever occurred to you that your accusations might be insulting to us.  All the feelings are apparently on your side of the conversation.

     

    I really, truly do try not to take what you say personally and to answer your posts in as objective a manner as I can, because frankly, you come across as not particularly stable emotionally.  There was a long and informative article in Parade Magazine today about the difficulties for adults with autism which I actually hesitated to share with you.  However, since 32.2 MILLION People have already read their copy, perhaps you could keep in mind that I didn’t write the article, I didn’t provide any of the information for it, and I’m posting it for you to look at because it illustrates precisely what we’ve already been talking about — after the child with the disability grows up and their parents die, then what?

    http://www.parade.com/health/autism/

     

  • progo35

    Crowepps-

    First of all I want to clarify the issue of “feelings.” When someone says (not you, but people have) that abortion is a good thing because less people with disabilities are born, that angers me and makes me feel that that individual is bigoted, and this is frustrating, especially when the individual is championing other civil rights or has made progress in this area. Jocelyn Elders is an example. In many ways she is an example of a strong, independent woman who has benefited from years of advocacy for the rights of women and African Americans. But then she went and said that abortion was a good thing because there were less people with Down Syndrome being born. I was in grade school at the time that that controversy came to light, and as the first black woman to be a US surgeon General, JE was held up as an example of someone that girls in my class could look up to. However, I knew about that comment, and as a girl with a disability, I felt that she was not someone I wanted to emulate. I was also gravely disappointed that she would make such a prejudiced statement, and that the President would still hire her.  What I DON’T remember feeling was “hurt.” I was angry. I felt that she was a hypocrite. I didn’t want her to be the Surgeon General. But the issue was not that my “feelings were hurt”-it was that the promise of equality that her appointment represented didn’t apply to me or others with disabilities, at least according to her.

    I feel the same way today. When I read statements here or elsewhere that I view as ableist, I feel frustrated, but I do not feel hurt, because I don’t know the people writing on this website and hence don’t place much stock in their opinions about me. If, however, my mom, mentor, or best friend said that they wished I had been aborted or that having a disabled baby is “cruel,” that would hurt my feelings. Reading the writings on this website make me worry that prejudice toward the handicapped is so embedded in our society that it is impossible to get rid of. That is scary, but it doesn’t “hurt my feelings.”

  • lauraj400

    Those no way to know in advance who has it.What do you think shoiuld be done with these kids?

  • arekushieru

    Since you didn’t grasp the point of the last two scenarios, here’s something for you to consider.  If a poor black woman gets pregnant and decides to abort, you are accusing her of racism, simply because the fetus would be black.  Because you aren’t willing to concede that certain circumstances surROUNding a pregnancy may have MORE to do with the decision to terminate than the fetus, itself.

    That’s because you have difficulty figuring out what is discrimination and what isn’t.  Discrimination is based on treating people differently.  We aren’t.  We’re asking that people weigh the same things when deciding whether or not to continue or terminate a pregnancy.  And you are the one who is asking that we give special consideration to those with disabilities, just because they have a disability.  THAT is discrimination, upwards discrimination against those who are disabled AND downwards discrimination against those who are abled.

  • arekushieru

    Ask Progo that question.  She’s the one who brought it up.  Thanks.

  • arekushieru

    And none of us can make mistakes?  Wow….  I’ve done similar things, posted, then reposted because I realized that wasn’t what I wanted to say.  And nowhere did we say you did say exactly that.  We are simply saying that that is how you’re coming across as?  Simple, no?  Because that’s exactly the type of response I get every time I try to tell you what we are ACTually saying, I think what she said is TOtally accurate.  And I never said you did bring up the topic of hell, so, I don’t see what the point of adding that in there was?  Unless it was to put words in mouth while accusing others of doing the same?

  • progo35

    It’s relevant because you called me out for misquoting Crowepps when I pointed out that I never said that I wished I was dead. So, it was necessary for me to point out that she in fact changed that post to read something else, because otherwise it would look like I misread what she wrote. My point in briniging up the hell bit is that you attacked me for responding to Crowepps by referrring to her ammended post, but did not acknowledge the fact that Crowepps said that I condemned people on this website to hell when I did not. In short, you are ready and willing to point out the mistakes of someone who doesn’t agree with your positions, but anyone who does agree gets a free pass, regardless of what she/he says.

  • arekushieru

    And, here is another person who puts words in other people’s mouths while lambasting them for doing the same.

    Laura, so you can see it CLEARly, this time, I have a disability.  I also have a mental illness.  I absoLUTEly believe that if my parents had known of my disability and mental illness they would NOT have terminated the pregnancy, simply because they were well-established enough to deal with those circumstances.  It had NOThing to do with whether they were ableist or not.  

    You seem to think that the disabled should endure more pain than those who are abled.  I find THAT very repugnant and discriminatory.  

    Which means I have NO idea why you would think the scenario you outlined would be in ANY way acceptable to me. I am not the ableist, after all.  

  • arekushieru

    Uh, you are pointing it out as if I said you did say that, when I simply ignored it. If there was a mistake, I wouldn’t have ignored it, I would have said something like I did with the other one.  The fact that they weren’t treated the same, should tell you something. 

  • progo35

    Your scenario concerning black women isn’t comparable to abortion in the case of fetal anomaly because in order to characterize a black woman’s abortion as “racist” we would have to buy the idea that she is prejudiced against black people, even though she is a black person. A better example would be a case of a woman having an abortion because she discovered that the fetus was fathered by someone of another race and didn’t want to have a biracial baby. She would be rejecting a difference that she saw in that fetus. In the case of aborting a fetus with a disability, the woman involved does not have that disability and hence has a prejudice against the fetus because it does not share her able-bodied-ness.

     

    And, Are, you aren’t disabled, so don’t go and tell me what ableism is and what it’s not.

  • progo35

    She got there because you used Tracy Latimer, a twelve year old child, to make a point about aborting a fetus, expressed the position that her father had the moral right to kill  her, and asserted that society should bless that action because, as her father, he knew better than anyone else whether this was an acceptable action taken in order to “end her suffering.” You then asserted that the sacrifice and problems encountered in raising a disabled child were not part of the normal parenting equation. Hence, Laura and I are wondering if you think that Latimer and parents like him should be able to kill their disabled kids, no questions asked. Based on your posts, I think you support such actions.

  • jrm83

    So if a disabled woman aborts a fetus that would have shared her disability, would that be ableism?  (I’m not being sarcastic.  I’m actually curious what your opinion is.)

  • arekushieru

    Yes, I am disabled, Progo.  I’ve told you that, already, MANY times.  Don’t tell me what I’m not, when I know DAMNED well what I am.  Do you want me to send you the report?  Or, next time, do you want to just avoid making ASSumptions?  Because the next time you do so, I will report you.

    And, again, you miss the point.  She made the decision to abort for the same reason that someone else made the decision to abort once fetal anomalies are detected, because they aren’t financially ready to deal with raising the resultant child, which, in her case, is caused by the poverty that affects minorities more than majorities. If financial difficulties, and systemic bullying, should be ignored, when it’s someone with a disability, by YOUR logic someone who aborts a fetus that is black, HAS to be racist, because she decided to have an abortion, AT ALL. 

     

  • arekushieru

    Um, yeah, excuse me, you can’t distinguish between internal torture and external torture, I guess.  

    The former is what you wanted to perpetuate against Tracy.  The latter is what Mr. Latimer wanted to prevent.

  • arekushieru

     

    Again, putting words in my mouth.  Don’t you ever get tired of being a hypocrite?  I never said he had a moral right to kill her.  I SAID (now, see if you can follow along more carefully, this time) that he has every right to want to eliminate his child’s suffering just as someone has every right to want to eliminate their own suffering, if they’re cognizant enough to do so. And, in some cases, the only option that appears to be available to them, to relieve that suffering, CAN, understandably, be death.  Are you going to say that Sue Rodriguez was ableist against herself?  One can be racist against those who are black, even if they are black.  One can be a misogynist, even if they are a woman.  And one can be ableist even if they, themselves, are disabled.  

    And, no, I ‘used’ Tracy Latimer, as I’ve told you TWICE already, to point out that resources are NOT always available.  Now, PLEASE read, before responding, next time.  

    Thanks.

  • progo35

    No, Are, you said that it was okay for Robert Latimer to do what he did. Hence, you said that society should bless that action. You brought up Tracy Latimer to make a point about disability and abortion. Moreover, the Latimers lived in Canada. There were resources available. Surgery was going to be carried out. Her doctor testified that Tracy seemed happy and Tracy also participated in integrated classes at her school. Your willingness to buy anything that euthanasia advocates tell you is really sad, and again, I don’t know how you reconcile supporting killing innocent people with your relationship with Christ, but that’s between you and Him.

  • arekushieru

    Your willingness to buy anything that euthanasia advocates tell you is really sad, and again, I don’t know how you reconcile supporting killing innocent people with your relationship with Christ, but that’s between you and Him.

    Your willingness to buy anything that disability advocates tell you is really sad, and again, I don’t know how you reconcile supporting torturing innocent people with your relationship with Christ (if you have one), but that’s between you and him.  

    But, that really would apply more to you, since any links I could have given you would have been to the court documents .  They wouldn’t have been to ‘euthanasia advocates’ (although I don’t know what is wrong with euthanasia, unless you really DO advocate for torture).  ALL of your links were from disability advocates.  And that includes Laura’s.  (Which is why I don’t feel the need to provide my own.)  Immediately biased, when I asked you for unbiased articles.  The court documents, unaltered by similarly biased outside sources, would have provided one such, even with all the perspectives that were biased withIN it.  I am aware that the doctor said she was happy just before the surgery, I am also aware that the doctor said that a LOT of the time she was also in pain and that her next surgery would be the most intrusive and painful one, yet and that she would not have been able to use painkillers because they would have interfered with her meds.

    Really?  Do provide me with a DIRECT quote where it says I believe that it was okay for Robert Latimer to do what he did.  I’ll be happy to prove you wrong, once again.


     


  • progo35

    I AM an disability advocate. Of course, you’re a euthanasia advocate, so neither of us is necessarily listening to what the “advocates” tell us. If you don’t care enough to share links to support your own arguments, than I don’t care enough to quote your assertions that you think it was okay for RL to do what he did.

  • arekushieru

    Did I ever say I wasn’t a euthanasia advocate?  No, I don’t believe I did….  I merely said there was nothing wrong with it, as you implied there was.  And I said that I could support my views with unbiased articles, so articles that DON’T come from ‘euthanasia advocates’.  

    You really don’t know how debate works, do you?  But, like I’ve already told you once before, the one to make the original claim (which means you) should back up their own claim first.  You have yet to do that.  I don’t think ANYone thinks biased articles would count, after all.

  • crowepps

    I don’t know how you reconcile supporting killing innocent people with your relationship with Christ

    This is the kind of statement on your part which led me to use the phrase in my description of your parting flounces “and you’re going to hell” — which is a PARAPHRASE and not your exact words, but certainly within the underlying intent of this judgmentalism

    No, Are, you said that it was okay for Robert Latimer to do what he did.

    NOBODY said it was “okay”.  They said they UNDERSTOOD WHY

    Hence, you said that society should bless that action.

    NOBODY said “society should bless that action”.  They said they UNDERSTOOD WHY and felt society should support people better so it wouldn’t happen

    You brought up Tracy Latimer to make a point about disability and abortion. Moreover, the Latimers lived in Canada. There were resources available.

    The resources may have been adequate for Tracy but they evidently weren’t adequate for Tracy’s father or he wouldn’t have flipped out, would he?

    Surgery was going to be carried out. Her doctor testified that Tracy seemed happy and Tracy also participated in integrated classes at her school.

    Maybe Tracy’s doctor was putting a happy face on Tracy’s life because Tracy’s doctor didn’t want to face the fact that HIS FAILURE to reassure Tracy’s father about Tracy’s pain and failure to address the father’s concerns over the upcoming treatment tormenting Tracy drove Tracy’s father over the edge into manslaughter.

    Your willingness to buy anything that euthanasia advocates tell you is really sad, and

    Now this kind of thing is just really snotty.  I didn’t see any statements holding up euthanasia advocates as experts qualified to settle the question. What was said was that this situation was SO STRESSFUL and the father’s belief in Tracy’s future suffering tormented him so much that it was possible to UNDERSTAND why the man was driven past what he could handle.

     

    It’s possible that the doctor was ignoring the father’s concerns because the doctor was pleased to have an unusual case in his hands whereby he could make a name for himself, and the doctor ignored Tracy’s needs because the doctor wanted to continue doing experimental surgeries and writing up reports for the medical journals.  Do I know that for a fact?  Nope, I sure do not and could be completely off base.  But there’s just as much evidence for that as there is for some of the really vile things you’ve said about the father.

     

    People can and do disagree about what level of suffering we are entitled to inflict on children by using modern medicine to extend lives which even a few decades ago would have been over in short order.  It is possible to tube feed a severely developmentally disabled infant and keep him/her alive an additional two or three years, but it’s important to remember that the process of doing so is artificial, can have painful complications, and puts a burden on the parents if its expected they can take a quickie course and then handle what would otherwise be done by a trained professional staff that works in shifts, for pay, with actual time off.

  • lauraj400

    The thing that bother a lot of people about the Latimores was their attitude.I saw an interview with Mrs. Latimore,she cAme across as a cold woman who saw Tracey as a piece of property.

  • lauraj400

    would have been the headline about Latimore?He DID kill her.

  • crowepps

    Well, gee, maybe they should have gotten an actress to play her on TV so that she would make a better impression on people who were sitting around at home judging her.  I didn’t see the interview, but I’ve got to say, knowing that your interview is part of your trial in the court of public opinion, and being expected to explain all about your family tragedy for the ‘infotainment’ of a bunch of strangers who sure weren’t around helping with the problems when you were struggling alone with them, just might possibly make some people “come across” badly.

     

    You might also keep in mind that some people aren’t training in the Southern drama queen, sobbing, shrieks of anguish, drop to the floor and roll around in agony style of public appearance, but instead try to stuff their emotions and deal with them privately because they have been taught it is vulgar to let their emotions be seen in public and they have a horror of people finding them pitiable or feeling sorry for them.

     

    It sounds like you’re saying that what happened to Tracy would have  been forgiveable if you had liked the mother more, or if the quality of the script contained more angst and or her acting was more appropriately hysterical.  Her mother wasn’t putting on a show, this was her actual real life.  It isn’t appropriate to do a performance review.

  • crowepps

    You think ‘homes’ worked better?  Really?  It was always my understanding they were both more expensive for the taxpayer and much worse for the children.

  • progo35

    Crowepps and Are:

    Are did, in fact, say that Latimer’s actions were acceptable. Are, please see below:

     

    [After LaPlume said that what Latimer did was wrong, because Tracy couldn't consent]: “I disagree with this opinion, somewhat, because that leaves open the question, is it okay to force others to suffer when they can’t speak for themselves? Are they to be left to suffer just because they were born in a place where euthanasia isn’t allowed?  It wasn’t just Tracy’s parents who noticed she was in pain.  It was her doctors, the people at the group home she often visited and certainly the knowledge of the fact that broken bones don’t feel pleasurable in any way shape or form.”

     You also said of Tracy’s murder:

    “Yeah, you didn’t suffer the pain she had to suffer.  She would have needed her legs to be amputated, without any painkillers.  What you would have forced her to face (just because she is disabled) is deSPICable and SICKening, which makes me wish I didn’t have to share the name of Christian with people like you.  But, like your usual greedy, selfish self, you project your own experiences onto others, without any empathy for the pain and suffering that may cause them. Again, yes, I’m a Christian.  And obviously one with more compassion than YOU.”

    And let’s not forget this memorable statement:

    “Ending someone’s suffering isn’t compassionate, just because it happens to kill them?  Wow, you have NO understanding of what compassion means, either, do you?”

    As for my mentioning her relationship with Christ, Crowepps, I did so because she has advertised the fact that she’s a believer several times. As a fellow Chrsitian, I do find her position on euthanasia somewhat “shocking” and really do wonder how Are reconciles her religious identity with her support for killing handicapped people who cannot consent to their own deaths. Moreover, this is not the same thing as saying that Are is going to hell, anymore than someone asking another person, “Hey, you’ve admitted that you regularly steal from the grocery store. Are you sure that’s what Jesus would want you to be doing?” It’s an accountability thing, not a condemnation thing. If I were telling someone that I thought they were going to hell, you’d know, because I wouldn’t beat around the bush: I’d say, “you’re going to hell.” I do not think such statments are effective in a civilized discussion on a secular topic, nor do I feel qualified to make pronouncements about someone’s eternal destiny. I have never brought up the topic of religion with someone who has not already idenitified as a believer or who is havinga  discussion about a spiritual topic, so it is not accurate for you to say that I told anyone that they were going to hell, directly or indirectly.

  • arekushieru

    Now, go from acceptable (although, I’m not saying I even said that and nothing you’ve SAID, PROVES it, either, which means I’m going to take great pleasure in proving you wrong, like I said I would) to what you actually said ‘moral right to kill’.  Of course, you’ll probably only change the goal posts even more.  

    All of these are WILDLY misinterpreted by you, as I knew they would be.  It all plays on those concepts you are unable to grasp.  Compassion, forced suffering and discrimination.  

    Compassion: If someone is in pain, and the only way to relieve it is through death, you believe that any resultant death automatically means the perpetrators of that death aren’t compassionate.  But you refuse to consider that the alternative actually means a display of a lack of compassion. Continued suffering of a family MEMBER (NOT yourself) just beCAUSE the only way to relieve their suffering means death.

    Forced suffering: Who is more likely to understand if someone is suffering?  A stranger or someone close to the person?  And who is more likely to want to lessen that suffering?  It’s not you, apparently, so it definitely can’t be strangers.

    Discrimination: Believing that someone doesn’t deserve relief from their suffering just because they can’t consent to it, IS discrimination.

    And, in each of those quotes you provided, that was ALL I was trying to impart.  SO sorry.

  • arekushieru

    Um, that wasn’t what I was talking about.  As you very well know.  Thanks.

  • progo35

    Are, if you’re disabled, than I will say the same thing I said to elburto: you are welcome to your perspectives but they are a minority among the disabled population. Report me to whom? The rhetoric police? People United for the Protection of Are? And no, my logic does not mean tha anyone who aborts a black fetus is racist, because that means that all black women who have abortions are duing so due to internalized racism, which isn’t true. To put it another way, if a woman with a disability has an abortion because of financial circumstances, that isn’t ableist. If she has an abortion because she’s afraid of passing her disability unto a child she could care for financially, than she is, most likely, expressing internalized ableism, at least IMO.

  • arekushieru

    I am waiting for an apology, Progo.  Whether or not my perspectives are in the minority are NOT what is in question.  YOU said that someone who is not disabled could not tell someone who is, what discrimination was.  In order to say that you OBviously had to ignore what I’ve already stated numerous times or you chose to disbelieve it (right now, given what I know of you, I’m going with the latter).  THAT is the reason why I said I would report you.

    That is exACTly the reason why the well-to-do couple I mentioned in the first scenario decided to abort.  Because they were going to be financially DESTITUTE if they did carry the fetus to term, just like the poor woman would have been if she carried her fetus that HAD no genetic abnormalities to term.  However, maybe I’ve been giving you more credit than I should have.  If you didn’t extrapolate that reasoning to make the comparison truly a comparison that is.  

  • progo35

    Are: I don’t have to say anything to prove that you  approve of what Latimer did, it’s right there in black and white, in your own words. The rest of your post is a convulated piece of backpeddling.

  • progo35

    It may  be an expression of internalized ableism/self hatred. For example, I at one point worried about whether or not I should have kids, because I worried about passing my disability on to them. But, if I bought into that, I would be charactarizing the sum whole of my being based on my disability and ignoring all of my positive experiences/strengths. I believe that these concerns stemmed from my lack of acceptance of disability as a normal physical difference. In short, I had internalized the ableism of others. This period in my life was, incidentally, in middle school when everyone wants to be like everyone else.

  • progo35

    Now, the fact that Planned Parenthood tends to set up in minority neighborhoods, on the other hand, and has been caught accepting donations marked towards aborting black fetuses, does, in my mind, indicate the possibility of racism among some in that organization.

  • arekushieru

    Really?  You know me better than myself?  No wonder you think you know better than Tracy’s family and caregivers what she was actually feeling…. Actually, what I stated was exACTly what I meant. (And yet you’d probably wonder why I’d think you were simply choosing to dibelieve I was disabled, even after further evidence of your narcissism; everything is about me and how I feel, so everyone must feel exactly the same way as I do or they don’t feel at all).

  • plume-assassine

    PP does not “tend” to set up in minority neighborhoods. And if they are there, it’s because women of color INVITED them to be there because they already have trouble accessing healthcare anyway.

    “has been caught accepting donations marked towards aborting black fetuses”

     One racist fuck within an entire organization does not make the entire organization racist. And do you think that upon “receiving” donations from some white supremacist (or pretend white supremacist), do you think there is a special file for all the “secret money” that is specifically earmarked for “Black abortions” and specifically goes toward their secret abortion marketing plan against Black women? Um, no. Damn, I am so sick of this conspiracy theory BS.

    Racism is still endemic in all aspects of society and unfortunately, you’re going to find it even in places like women’s healthcare. But that should not mean that the entire organization is suddenly suspect and that you have to start taking rights away from Black women because you secretly believe that they’re incapable of protecting themselves and their own choices.

  • arekushieru

    Uh, yeah, you haven’t been paying attention, have you?  The reason PP sets up in minority neighbourhoods IS because women in minorities tend to be more disadvantaged than women in majorities.  For that reason, they also tend to have more unintended pregnancies.  Women in minorities also tend to continue more pregnancies than the same women in majorities.  Should we accuse CPCs et al anti-choicers of racism, now?  I could just as easily go in and ask that my donation be directed towards the abortion of a white fetus.  The receptionist would accept my donation and put it wherever that donation was going to go, anyways.  Oy. 

    You’re changing your goal posts, by the way, as usual.  In one situation you claim it’s the woman having the abortion who is being discriminatory, then you turn around and say it’s the policies that are discriminatory.  Make up your mind. 

  • progo35

    Are-I don’t “know you” but your own words clearly express support for what Latimer did to his daughter. In fact, I feel like  you’re expecting us to read your mind and know exactly what you mean when your words are the only thing readers have to determine your intent. Saying that Tracy had some sort of right to be killed to end her suffering and that her father “knew best” clearly indicates that you support the right of individuals to kill loved ones who can’t consent, which, IMO, leaves the door wide open to abuse. As for you being disabled, I never questioned that assertion. If you say you’re disabled, than I buy it, but your perspective is not widely shared or supported in the disabled community.

  • progo35

    Some things NEED to be black and white. Otherwise there are no standards from which to determine which behaviors are moral and which are immoral, and that is the only thing standing between us and the total disintegration of human rights.

  • arekushieru

    From what I can see, your reply responds to Crowepps own post on human suffering.  If morals are black and white, it’s morally right to relieve someone’s suffering, in ALL circumstances, not JUST when you can relieve someone’s suffering without killing them, and not JUST when they’re not disabled.  You don’t see things from the other side very often, do you? Not surprising, since your most recent post to me demonstrates this same lack of intellect.

  • arekushieru

    ….Using it to tell me, unilaterally, what my intent is, when you don’t even begin to have the slightest clue.  Please, stop.  It’s very disingenuous of you.   

    CLEARly you have difficulty with interpretation.  If I was going to say that it was acceptable for someone to kill another person under certain circumstances I would do so.  For example, when someone is in a life-threatening situation I think it IS morally acceptable for them to kill the attacker that created the situation.  However, in either of the cases you mentioned, none of that is true, because I was simply making a direct comparison to something else.  

    In the first case I was comparing compassion towards the suffering of one who CAN consent to the end of life to relieve it and towards one who CAN’T consent to the continuation OR end of their life. I was saying that I do NOT consider the latter’s suffering to be ‘less valuable’ than the former’s.  Yet you hold it up as a standard of such, so that you can prove that you are a morally (self-) righteous person.  

    In the second case I was simply comparing compassion towards those who are abled and compassion towards those who are abled AND disabled.  I was saying that both those who are disabled and abled can experience suffering. You say someone who is disabled, cannot. Or, if you believe they do, you say that it must be ignored so that they can be held up as a standard for everyone else who has a similar disability. 

    In the third and FINAL case, I was comparing compassion in the end of one’s life and compassion by other means.  Compassion is relief of suffering.  Relief of suffering can be achieved through the end of someone’s life.  YOU say it cannot.  

    That is ALL I was saying.  

    You keep saying that I’m saying that Tracy had some sort of right to be killed which is why I believe that Tracy had some sort of right to be killed.  Beg the question, much?

    Tell me, would you say a close friend or family member would know your situation better than I do?  If you do, then you have just given me the last nail to put in the coffin of your ASSumption.  I am not saying what you so DESPERATELY want me to be saying.

    And, finally, I never said you questioned that assertion.  I simply said that you ignored it, which led me to believe (going by previous ‘conversations’ I’ve had with you) that you had chosen to disbelieve it, when you made the actual assertion that I didn’t have a disability.  If you’re going to accuse me of assuming something on what is a relatively short acquaintance, I must ask you….

    Are you now declaring yourself as the only one who can make ASSumptions?  

  • crowepps

    Some things NEED to be black and white. Otherwise there are no standards from which to determine which behaviors are moral and which are immoral, and that is the only thing standing between us and the total disintegration of human rights.

    Pretending choices are black and white allows people to escape making choices in messy reality but it requires pretending that people are either innocent or evil, that all person are the same, their situations and needs are the same and the same solution will work for all of them.

     

    The thing standing between people and the total disintegration of their human rights is a general recognition that people as unique individuals need their unique situations recognized and unique solutions tailored that satisfy THEM.  Providing everybody the same thing no matter what they need or want is easy but solves nothing.

     

    People work constantly to determine whether their behavior is moral or immoral in particular situations.  It is impossible to come up with a one-size-fits all set of rules that provides a pat answer in every situation.  This whole conversation seems off to me, and I think the reason is that some of us are talking about ‘a terrible situation, badly handled, awful results for everyone involved, tragedy all around’ and some sound like their focus is pinning all the guilt on one ‘evildoer’, rejecting his explanation of why he behaved the way he did, then condemning and punishing him.

     

    Turning him into a stereotype ‘evil selfish dad’ violates HIS human right to have his situation recognized, it does nothing to identify or correct problems in the network of care that leave disabled children suffering, and it doesn’t provide other parents in similar situations alternatives to the horrible choice of ‘mercy killing’.

  • progo35

    “Turning him into a stereotype ‘evil selfish dad’ violates HIS human right to have his situation recognized, it does nothing to identify or correct problems in the network of care that leave disabled children suffering, and it doesn’t provide other parents in similar situations alternatives to the horrible choice of ‘mercy killing.”

     

    Well, then I guess we should extend that same consideration to Susan Smith and Scott Peterson. After all, they both killed their children as well. Moreover, Tracy lived in Canada where there is FREE healthcare and LOTS of resources. You can’t use resources and stress as an excuse for those who kill their disabled children. Some people ARE evil selfish parents and would do things like this even if the resources were available. I believe that that’s what happened here.

  • progo35

    LOL, Are. There is no way that I am apologizing to you, because you being disabled still does not give you the right to tell me what discrimination is and what it isn’t. Moreover, I think it’s really sad that you, a disabled person, participate in spreading the ableist stereotype that well off couples will become financially destitute if they have a disabled child.

  • progo35

    LaPlume-I didn’t actually mean to portray PP the organization as racist. All I meant was that surely the people involved in those particular phone calls had some racism inside them, and that that, not the decision of a black woman to have an abortion, is racist. But that doesn’t mean that PP is racist. As you say, they may be in those neighborhoods because they are trying to provide services that aren’t being provided. Probably some in the organization are racist and some are not. Hopefully most are not.

  • elburto

    Just as I do not speak for all dykes, all british people, all non-neurotypical people, or all poor people – you do not speak on behalf of disabled people.

    You keep saying that the “disabled community” are against abortion for reasons of foetal abnormality. What ‘disabled community’, and where? Because I can tell you that as a man, and an anti-choicer, you’d be considered very much a fringe element to be patted on the head and sent to play with himself in my community. The disabled community, the activists I associate with, consider your views abhorrent because they remove choice from the woman, because in your world it’s better that severely disabled children are born to parents without the means or will to take care of them. That disgusts me, it disgusts my sister activists. Foster homes and institutions worldwide are overflowing with miserable, deprived, unloved disabled children whose parents had choice removed from them. And you want to create more? Are you going to go to Susan’s house at 3am to wipe shit off her 16 year old son, or sit up all night with Kay while her 12 year old daughter screams and smacks her head into a wall repeatedly? Will you help families forced into birthing severely disabled kids financially, so that they don’t end up in desperate poverty, abusing the child they wish had never been born?

    Of course you won’t. You’re just an anti-choice troll who thinks he can get sympathy and asspats by crying “But i’m disabled!” while simultaneously saying “Don’t abort your disabled child, I’m disabled and I’m fine!”, as if a life spent trolling and taunting women is something anyone would aspire to for their kid. Yeah, right.

  • elburto

    What is your major malfunction progo? It’s just that one of the congenital problems I have is not something I’ve adapted to because I didn’t know any better. In fact, the older I get, the worse it becomes. Two years ago I could walk around in pain. Four years ago I worked full time and walked everywhere. Not now. Now standing for more than a minute makes me sob. Walking to the toilet thirty feet away requires as two hour nap. Sitting upright for more than an hour incurs a recovery period of two days. How can I adapt to that? People with no limbs, or missing limbs, become progressively more disabled too. It’s easy enough to use your feet to eat with as a child, or to walk on your arms swinging your body along, but it becomes harder and more painful with every year. Previously independent people often end up requiring full time care and support. So you’re wrong, as usual, that people born with disabilities aren’t troubled by them like they would be by acquired problems. You don’t even seem to account for the fact that being born with one disability or chronic illnesses. in no way prevents you from acquiring more as you age. At 33 I have a bewildering mix of congenital problems, inherited ones, acquired chronic illnesses and injuries and so on, and none of them are curable, only some are treatable. I can only get worse, not better. I’d abort myself now if I could, so stop acting like you’re some authority on the lived experience of other PWD.

  • lauraj400

    we had a RIGHT to do it and he did not just FLIP out.He admitted he planned IT for weeks.

  • lauraj400

    we had A right to do it,it was noone’s elses business.He did Not flip out.He planned this for weeks.

  • lauraj400

    this case.ALL OF Tracey’s mds tessified AGAINST Him.Her main doctor told the court he had Assured the parents that they had found a pain medication she could use,and the group home where she LIVED were going to give it to her.Lattimore nixed itbecause HE did not like needles.

  • crowepps

    Some people ARE evil selfish parents and would do things like this even if the resources were available. I believe that that’s what happened here.

    Unfortunately that’s true, and as your mention of Susan Smith references, evil selfish parents do exactly the same thing to perfectly healthy children, which might mean this isn’t about prejudice against the disabled at all but rather about society leaving ALL children vulnerable to evil selfish parents because society doesn’t really care that much about individual children at all but instead finds ‘sticking’ people with unwanted children a useful weapon to punish ‘immorality’.

     

    There isn’t anything ProLife about insisting children be born so their existence and the burden of supporting them will punish their parents for having sex, even though it certainly makes everybody appropriately miserable, including the children, not that the moralists apparently give a flip about that.

  • plume-assassine

    I didn’t actually mean to portray PP the organization as racist

    Okay, thank you, and I did not mean to jump to conclusions about your comment, but it’s just that the anti-choice conspiracy theorists are common on this board and the racism (disguised as anti-racism) behind their beliefs really gets under my skin. And I always come back to my belief in advocating for the autonomy and free will of Black women and other women of color, no matter their family size or economic status.

    Probably some in the organization are racist and some are not. Hopefully most are not.

    I think this is the case: that most are not. We still have a hell of a long way to go in all aspects of society but I believe that – in an organization that was originally founded on reproductive freedom of an oppressed class – you are less likely to find forms of institutional oppression (racism) there than in other areas of society and other fields of employment.

  • arekushieru

    Proof, please.  Nothing I’ve read has said he nixed it because he didn’t like needles, which brings the REST of your comment into question,

  • arekushieru

    Actually, elburto, there is one correction that I think I need to make; Progo is a woman.  

  • arekushieru

    Yet, she’s still showing signs of changing the goal posts.  In one case she says it’s the situation (and the people included in it) behind it all, then she says it’s the people who actually perpetrate the act.

  • arekushieru

    Ugh, how many times are you going to misinterpret what I say?  I am asking for an apology, because you denied that I was disabled when I had already told you that I was (going by this, I am becoming more and more SURE that it is simply because you disbelieve it).  GET. A. CLUE.

    It’s not ableist, it’s a FACT.  You really need to start learning to deal with them. If a well-off (you DO know what well-off means, DON’T you?) couple has a child whose medications, surgeries, doctor’s appointments, extra time off work to provide the needed extra care, paying for a secondary caregiver, ETC… cost thousands of dollars more than a child who does NOT have a disability, then they are going to be in the SAME financial position as the impoverished woman who decides not to continue a pregnancy because it would make HER financially destitute. 

  • plume-assassine

    Yes, I suppose back-pedaling is rather common when one is faced with the truth

  • arekushieru

    There were no resources, Progo.  Tracy had multiple disabilities.  All of which the parents MIGHT have been able to deal with separately, but definitely not together.  I should know.  I live in Canada.

  • arekushieru

    I’m sorry! It’s the context! And I have difficulty with them, at times… But I was responding to a post of yours, on this same thread, that Progo used to accuse me of the same thing and I wondered if you thought that I had been doing the same thing.  Really, I wasn’t!  I’m sorry if you thought that, though….  ^^;

  • arekushieru

    Um, that can’t POSSibly mean, after all, that he flipped out weeks before and was STILL flipping out.

    Again, proof, please. 

  • plume-assassine

    Oh, no, I wasn’t implying anything about you. I thought you were saying that Progo was changing the goal posts about what she said regarding Planned Parenthood and “racism.” And I was agreeing with you that it looked like she was back-pedaling a bit. At least I think that’s what you were refering to. But in any case I think it’s a good sign anyway that she doesn’t completely buy that racist myth (perpetuated by white men) hook, line, and sinker that the anti’s have been pushing lately.

  • arekushieru

    Yes, that was what I was referring to. 

    And, yes, I do agree that it’s a good sign regarding what she said about Planned Parenthood.

    :)

  • lauraj400

    did his daily activities.no one saw anything wrong.

  • arekushieru

    So?  I know someone who was dying and no one suspected it until they didn’t show up for work one day because they couldn’t get out of bed and was hospitalized.

  • crowepps
  • crowepps

    I’ve made some statements here a few times that I reconsidered and amended because other people pointed out they were confusing or didn’t across in the way that I meant.  It’s not so much ‘back pedaling’ as it is thinking a little longer and clarifying language that doesn’t express you thoughts accurately.  In my opinion, that’s a good thing — the site is SUPPOSED to encourage people to consider thoughtfully.  It’s not as important to ‘win’ as it is to get people to really think things through, and I think that’s true even if when the discussion ends they still disagree with you.

  • progo35

    Have you contacted a pain management center/specialist? They might be able to help treat your pain, and for a reduced fee. Moreover, it would seem that a motorized wheelchair would be helpful. That would allow you to get around without having to walk and experience the pain that causes. You shouldn’t have to live in pain. There are places to get the help that you need.

  • wendy-banks

    That’s so sad.

    And Barrett in a major asshat.

  • progo35

    “Instead of harassing women, why don’t you go harass the bigots whose bias fills the women with such dread about their child’s future?”

     

    I AM.