Writers: ‘Are we saying society would be better off without Down’s syndrome babies?’
June 6th, 2009From DoubleX magazine (a spinoff of Slate, property of the Washington Post Company):
Ayelet Waldman, author of ‘Bad Mother,’ and Elizabeth Weil, a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine, conduct a five-part conversation about late-term abortions in the wake of George Tiller’s death. Both women have had late-term abortions following diagnoses of fetal abnormalities. (Waldman’s diagnosis was an unspecified genetic abnormality with an “unknowable” prognosis; Weil’s was a cytomegalovirus.)
From Waldman, in part 5:
When NPR was considering running a piece by me about my abortion, they told me that they needed balance, and I wondered, am I going to end up in a debate over whether people with Down’s Syndrome deserve to be born, to live?
A commenter on my first post asks that very question. The answer makes me incredibly uncomfortable. No one likes to think of herself as a proponent of a contemporary form of eugenics. And yet, in some cobwebby corner of my mind, I fear that this is what I am saying. I absolutely believe that it’s fine to abort a mentally retarded baby. I have no doubt in my mind that I would do the same thing again. I’d go to any legal length to defend another woman’s right to do the same. But then aren’t I simply saying that people with developmental disabilities are better off dead? Or, perhaps more accurately, that we as a society are better off without them?
Now I’ve got a knot in my belly. Where’s that think tank full of bioethicists when you need them?
From Weil, in part 3:
The tough zone starts for me with the horrible question of which babies — not to mince words — are too fucked up, which babies have defects so serious we think it’s OK to decide they can’t live? What do you think about a baby with cystic fibrosis? What about a blind or a deaf one? We all know great people born in horrible bodies. Should we be allowed to say, no thanks, I’d rather try again for a better-formed kid?
… I think part of the public discussion we need to have is about the link between abortion and prenatal testing. Why are we doing all this testing if we don’t condone women acting on the results?
… here’s the tough part again: Do we really think aborting all future Down babies amount[s] to “curing” a disease?
Full text can be found at:
Part One: ‘Kansas stories; What late-term abortions are really like’
Part Two: ‘Ayelet Waldman and Elizabeth Weil: The truth about late-term abortions’
Part Three: Ayelet Waldman and Elizabeth Weil: ‘When is abortion not OK?’
Part Four: “Ayelet Waldman: The abortion restrictions I’d accept”
Part Five: ‘Are we saying society would be better off without Down’s syndrome babies?’
This entry was posted
on Saturday, June 6th, 2009 at 5:30 pm and is filed under Down syndrome, NOT2BEMISSED, abortion, eugenics, prenatal diagnosis.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Email This Post
Our RSS Feed
June 10th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“myths about disability: “I’ll have to quit my job. No one will help me. My child won’t be valued by society.”
Why do you call these myths ?
June 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I beg to differ. I believe the problem actually is with the “right to choose”. I value the honesty of Waldman in asking the tough quesiton of herself – but let’s also be honest about this: it’s not a terribly risky question when, in fact, aborting babies at 36 weeks b/c of Down syndrome is “okay” and legal. That is, we are already firmly entrenched in eugenics – whether we call them private choices or public policy. What’s the difference, really?
June 8th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
It’s not about the right to choose. The decision to end a pregnancy, for whatever reason, should not be prohibited by laws. It’s that when such an overwhelming number of women decide that life with a disability is one not worth living, there is something systemic going on.
Choices are made by individuals based on their life experiences. And when our life experience does not include meaningful interaction with people with disabilities, we make decisions in a fear-filled vacuum. We make decisions based on what we think we can “handle” – or on myths about disability: “I’ll have to quit my job. No one will help me. My child won’t be valued by society.” Without a real, public dialogue about the realities and myths of raising a differently-abled child, there is no way for women facing this very difficult decision to make an informed choice.
The problem is not the tests or the procedure, but the lack of unbiased and complete information. Our current system of genetic counseling (which I’ve been through) is fundamentally flawed.