Feminism Thread Reactivate!

[Mlle. Zabzie]

At least here, adoption is a very, very complicated process which can take years and cost an absolute fortune, not to mention there are lots of restrictions in place as to how adoption from other countries work, i.e. some countries demand the parents to be married, no same-sex couples, etc etc etc.

One of my colleague's sisters tried to have children for many years, gave up and went for adoption, tried for years to get the paperwork through and since it took so long, they eventually had a biological child of their own, at the time the mother had already turned 40. I appreciate that adoption is an option, but for quite a few people it need not be the *simplest* option. Nor even possible (as in many cases if you wait too long, you get too old for adoption as well due to the strict conditions the parents need to uphold for adoption).

As an "older mother" (I was past 35 with my second child) I feel it is quite unfair to tar all women past 35 with "high risk" since unless there is a pre-existing condition or the quadruple test comes back with a warning, the risk of a disabled child is not that much higher than for a younger women. I do agree that if both parents have severe genetic dispositions that they are aware of, then yes, that would certainly give me pause, at least.

To add - there are now very good genetic tests that can test at the embryo level (i.e., using IVF and testing at the 6 cell stage) whether a particular embryo has inherited a genetic disorder. As I've mentioned before, my twins were the result of IVF + PGD, not because they could find anything particular wrong with either my husband's or my genes but because they started to wonder whether the two of us just threw off more than the standard number of aneuploid embryos given the number of miscarriages I had. I have friends who did have genetic issues ranging from mosaicism in one partner to a high risk of tay-sachs. I've personally got no problem, if you've done the genetic work and know you have an issue with selecting embryos that do not have those issues in an IVF process. That is also a form of "abelist" selection.

[Summah]

Lyanna, you're right I shouldn't paint all parents (increased paternal age is also associated with certain disabilities) over 35 as high risk because it's not necessarily true. I don't know that much about adoption, but some countries seem to have pretty lax rules, my mother has a single friend (who also happens to be a lesbian, but I don't know if that came up in the adoption process) who was able to adopt a child from Cambodia quite easily about 15 years ago. The other option that I didn't mention because of cost, for people who really want an able baby is IVF and I see that Mlle. Zabzie beat me to it.

But what it really comes back to for me, is that disability can happen to anyone at any time and it's really something people should think more carefully about before deciding to have children.

[Eponine]

Is there a moral difference between saying - I don't want a female/disabled/characteristic child and being on birth control to prevent that pregnancy - and saying that you don't want a certain type of child and aborting a fetus of that type?

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Lyanna, you're right I shouldn't paint all parents (increased paternal age is also associated with certain disabilities) over 35 as high risk because it's not necessarily true. I don't know that much about adoption, but some countries seem to have pretty lax rules, my mother has a single friend (who also happens to be a lesbian, but I don't know if that came up in the adoption process) who was able to adopt a child from Cambodia quite easily about 15 years ago. The other option that I didn't mention because of cost, for people who really want an able baby is IVF and I see that Mlle. Zabzie beat me to it.

But what it really comes back to for me, is that disability can happen to anyone at any time and it's really something people should think more carefully about before deciding to have children.

I'm curious though how you separate on a moral level abortion after testing and selection of embryos (knowing that non-genetically viable embryos will be discarded or donated for research)?

[Summah]

Eponine, yes because in the first case you're preventing all pregnancies, not just the kind with the undesirable fetuses.

MZ, I'm really not into selecting against disabilities generally (unless it's anencephaly or something like that) for many reasons, but currently IVF embryos can't become living people unless they're implanted in someone, whereas the embryo/fetus that's aborted is further along the path to potential life.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Having problems quoting. GotSI - while it is true that the embryos have to be implanted (at least under current technology) to gestate, I'm not sure how your theory allows for pre-implantation screening at all. Why shouldn't implantation be random then? You mention anencephaly as a possible ok reason, but where does one draw the line? What is "something like that"? Tay-Sachs? Fragile X? (to give different ends of the spectrum). I keep coming back to the base premise that I shouldn't have to carry an unwanted child, for whatever the reason and at whatever point.

[Summah]

MZ, As I said before, I don't support any legal restrictions on abortion for any reason, this is my own personal moral interpretation and why I equate selective abortion for gender and selective abortion for disability on the same moral level, though I don't agree with legal restrictions on either. And I don't think women who don't want a disabled child should have it (because they might/probably not be good parents to that child), but that doesn't make it any less ableist, just as the person who aborts a fetus for gender is sexist. My moral line is diseases that result in an unviable fetus or an infant that will die shortly after birth so Tay Sachs abortion moral, Fragile X no. Ideally I'd like a system where all disabilities are acceptable and accommodated and people screen for viability (pre or post natal), but not other disabilities, I think many people see disabilities as entirely negative whereas many people considered disabled by society in general do not consider themselves disabled and disabilities can confer positives as well as negatives.

[karaddin]

Zabzie - getting a bit OT but... I've only recently become aware of mosaic conditions after learning about klinefelter's (just had a blood test for mosaic klinefelter's the other day) and was wondering if this was the one your friend had or if there are other mosaic conditions and if so what are they? I like random knowledge.

[Serious Callers Only]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(genetics)

Blood chimeras are fairly frequent (in twins), because they sometimes share blood producing cells so it's frequent for non-identical twins to have two different blood groups for instance.

Complete chimeras are rare, but there are documented cases. One case is famous:

"In 2002, Lydia Fairchild was denied public assistance when DNA evidence showed that she was not related to her children. A lawyer for the prosecution heard of a human chimera in New England, Karen Keegan, and suggested the possibility to the defence, who were able to show that Fairchild, too, was a chimera with two sets of DNA.[15]"

[Eponine]

Eponine, yes because in the first case you're preventing all pregnancies, not just the kind with the undesirable fetuses.

MZ, I'm really not into selecting against disabilities generally (unless it's anencephaly or something like that) for many reasons, but currently IVF embryos can't become living people unless they're implanted in someone, whereas the embryo/fetus that's aborted is further along the path to potential life.

But you were ALREADY sexist when you chose not to get pregnant for that reason. So what makes the abortion MORE sexist? The act of not bringing a female baby into the world was happening both ways. So it's more sexist to have a male baby OR no baby than just no baby?

FWIW, I believe that people who don't want a certain type of baby should abort. As opposed to bringing that baby unwanted into the world. And I'm exhibit #1 of the BEST possible outcome.

[Summah]

I wasn't debating the degree of sexism but rather how these acts (and mostly I've been talking about disabled fetuses and ableism) fit on my own personal moral compass. And at the same time I think people should consider many of these things more carefully before reproducing.

I agree that those who don't want a certain type of baby should abort. However fetuses are potential life and it seems clear to me that it's preferable not to create one in the first place than to abort one if it isn't what you want. Especially since the moral ambiguity of the act increases with gestational time. And believing that there should be no legal restrictions on abortion does mean that abortion is a neutral act in terms of morality. I'm not saying it's wrong, but not being wrong doesn't mean there are not moral and ethical issues involved.

[Livus]

(Delurking)

Ideally I'd like a system where all disabilities are acceptable and accommodated and people screen for viability (pre or post natal), but not other disabilities, I think many people see disabilities as entirely negative whereas many people considered disabled by society in general do not consider themselves disabled and disabilities can confer positives as well as negatives.

Which sort of brings you back to the points made in this thread a couple of pages back, about things like costs, resources, social security and the material effects on people's lives, particularly at the severe end of the disability spectrum where there are ongoing medical costs and therapeutic costs etc.

If a decision takes into account the real material conditions of mother and prospective child insofar as they are affected by the lack of accommodation in the wider society, then surely some of the moral and ethical issues involved reflect on the morality of that society rather than on the mother?

[Gneisenau]

I wasn't debating the degree of sexism but rather how these acts (and mostly I've been talking about disabled fetuses and ableism) fit on my own personal moral compass. And at the same time I think people should consider many of these things more carefully before reproducing.

I agree that those who don't want a certain type of baby should abort. However fetuses are potential life and it seems clear to me that it's preferable not to create one in the first place than to abort one if it isn't what you want. Especially since the moral ambiguity of the act increases with gestational time. And believing that there should be no legal restrictions on abortion does mean that abortion is a neutral act in terms of morality. I'm not saying it's wrong, but not being wrong doesn't mean there are not moral and ethical issues involved.

I'm not against abortion, but why does it matter if the fetus is living or not ? To me even if the fetus is a living thing it doesn't follow that its rights override the women's rights (espicially when it dwells in said women).

[Summah]

(Delurking)

Which sort of brings you back to the points made in this thread a couple of pages back, about things like costs, resources, social security and the material effects on people's lives, particularly at the severe end of the disability spectrum where there are ongoing medical costs and therapeutic costs etc.

If a decision takes into account the real material conditions of mother and prospective child insofar as they are affected by the lack of accommodation in the wider society, then surely some of the moral and ethical issues involved reflect on the morality of that society rather than on the mother?

Well yes it does reflect on society, but it also reflects individual ableism, which to some degree persists because society allows it to exist. But then the social model of disability is that disability is caused by society's lack of accommodation of what society thinks is the disability. I understand that people take many issues into account, but I think, based on things that I've heard people say,that many people don't want a disabled child because it's disabled, not because of many of these issues, yes for some people it is about those things, but given things I've heard people say, and tactless, revealing things that people have said to me personally (such as "I'd kill myself if I had that condition/that amount of pain" that they knew I had), so I think a lot of it is about ableism which does then make it a parallel to sexism.

I'm not against abortion, but why does it matter if the fetus is living or not ? To me even if the fetus is a living thing it doesn't follow that its rights override the women's rights (espicially when it dwells in said women).

I never said that the fetus' right overrides the woman's rights, I don't think I even implied that and clearly stated the I oppose restrictions on abortion. I don't think believing that birth control is preferable to abortion in any way implies that a fetus has rights over the woman, I don't know where you get that idea from, because reducing the number of abortions (via birth control) really shouldn't be a controversial idea.

I think maybe something that's missing from this conversation is for women of color and disabled women that reproductive rights are about far more than the right to have an abortion, but also the right to reproduce and not be forcibly sterilized or have their children taken away from them.

[TerraPrime]

I think maybe something that's missing from this conversation is for women of color and disabled women that reproductive rights are about far more than the right to have an abortion, but also the right to reproduce and not be forcibly sterilized or have their children taken away from them.

Yes.

The talk of linking social assistance, either private or public, to sterilization has been around, and will continue to be around. It is nefarious and immoral, but some people will endorse it.