Abortion rights supporters should not reinforce prejudices about disability

By Anne Finger, June 11, 2009

I was horrified by the murder of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas on May 31.

So when I heard there would be a vigil commemorating Tiller in front of the San Francisco City Hall, I attended.

Tiller was one of the few providers who performed late-term abortions, which are done for a variety of reasons, but often because of “fetal defects.”

It wasn’t easy for me to be there.

I’m a mother who has had an abortion.

I’ve worked as an abortion counselor, and I’ve been a longtime proponent of reproductive justice.

So I should have felt right at home at the vigil, but I did not.

Here’s the reason: At the vigil, one speaker after another talked about needing the right to have an abortion so as to avoid giving birth to a baby with a genetic anomaly. One speaker who had an abortion for this reason explained how the doctor who had performed it reassured her with pictures of the healthy babies women had given birth to after they’d had abortions for reasons such as hers.

I think of myself as healthy, I go to yoga classes and bike and eat lots of organic fruits and vegetables. My doctor, looking over the results of my annual blood work, saw my cholesterol numbers and said, “Go eat some Haagen-Dazs.” But sitting there in my wheelchair at the steps of the San Francisco City Hall, I knew that when people were talking about “healthy,” they were not talking about me.

At the vigil, mostly I heard about the “tragedy” of “fetal defects.” The unstated assumption was that disabilities are bad, and of course we should want to get rid of them. If that’s not possible, we should prevent the birth of someone with a disability.

These unstated assumptions concern me. We need to be wary of the dangers of talking about choice in a vacuum, of not acknowledging the social and economic forces that shape our individual “choices,” and the impact that those cumulative individual choices can, in turn, have.

The strongest support for abortion comes in cases of “fetal defect,” but I think that tells us less about support for abortion and more about society’s fear of disability.

Let’s face it: Disability is a part of life. People are born with disabilities, and they acquire them later in life.

You could become disabled while you are in a car, backpacking, diving into a swimming pool or, as happened to a friend of mine, sledding down a hill on a school cafeteria tray.

You could get an infection or develop an autoimmune disease.

In fact, disability probably will happen to you or a family member; it will almost certainly be a part of your life.

I urge my fellow supporters of abortion rights not to reinforce prejudices about disability.

We cannot allow ourselves to become a force for oppression of one group in the name of liberating another.

Anne Finger is a writer who lives in Oakland, Calif. Her next book, a short story collection, “Call Me Ahab,” will be published by the University of Nebraska Press in the fall. She can be reached at pmproj [at] progressive [dot] org.

Comments

Dear Ms Finger,

You write a very poignant piece. You seem like a very intelligent and wise woman.

Let me say I admire your honesty and candor. But you've noticed a very large can of worms has been open since Roe v Wade.

You, as a disabled person, have issues with those who'd abort a child out of hand because of "defects."
So what are valid reasons for having an abortion? The pregnancy is an inconvenience? Unplanned? When one considers that for every abortion in the U.S. there are several infertile couples, many of whom will pay all medical costs and support a mother-to-be in order to adopt the child, abortion seems the most gutless and selfish choice a woman can make. It's not the best we can do as a society.

This worship of the right to snuff out an inconvenient beating heart is the root cause of the
willingness to snuff out a cripple, a Downs baby or any other "abnormal" person.

It's been suggested that soon we'll be able to tell if a child may turn out gay before he or she is born. What happens when a couple decide to abort and try again for a straight baby?

At the root of the "pro-choice" argument is a fundamental belief that life just isn't sacred. (Well, murderers, rapists, child molesters/killers...and Islamic terrorists all deserve second chances, but innocent children deserve NO FIRST chance, because it might cramp a woman's style. Right?)

Ultimately, people like you will be deemed "unnecessary" and a "burden to society," and will be thrown under the bus, because of the same callous disregard for human life that you champion.

Same root.

Submitted by greg morris on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 6:29pm.

CURRENT ISSUE: FEBRUARY 2012

February 2012

Progressive Matt

The Koch Brothers Conspire to Buy the White House