JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> Probably common enough when it happens, but birth defects are rare. Also,
> some, particularly neurological ones like Down's don't show up till after it's
> too late for infanticide, and in peasant societies, physical defects might
> merge into (c), that is, the problem si not that the baby is crippled in some
> way per se, but that the family can't afford someone who will never be able to
> contribute. I'm just talking about people's motivations, you understand, not
> whether they are defensible.
Frances already commented about the visibility of a down syndrome in an infant, but I would like to tell you a personal story. I have had a disability from birth, it is not genetic. When I was pregnant with my daughter, by gynecologist did her best to get me to abort. She was so ignorant about disability that she asked me "What if your baby has a defect like you?" My answer to to her was "So what if she is?"
I have been in groups with other disabled women who share remarkably similar experiences with doctors and other health care professionals.
There was a major exposure of disability prejudice on KFI radio about CBS anchorwoman Bree Walker who has a disability and was pregnant. Bree was going to have a child that had a fifty fifty chance of inheriting her disaiblity. The host, Jane Norris asked her audience "Is that a fair thing to do to a child?" Most of the callers agreed with Norris that Bree should not have her baby.
My point is that the prejudices are transmitted, and condoned. There are pressures to have "perfect" babies and many many people will abort at the sign of a cleft foot. It does happen. So while we might like to think these things do not go on, for the people who have lived with disability all our lives, we know better than to live under such illusions.
> >Roe v Wade has been used to extend
> the privacy right so that a surrogate can end the life of a husband, wife or
> children who are "incompetent" by withdrawing tubes and respirators.
>
> Uh, case cite? You are mistaken.
The Elizabeth Bouvia case in california set the precedent that any person can remove life support systems or refuse treatment. When a person is not "competent" the surrogate has the right to remove any feeding tubes, etc.
> The Supreme Court in fact rejected a
> constitutional right to die that had been urged by the 9th Circuit. I'd support
>
> such a right myself.
You are mistaken, the Supreme Court did not rule. It simply did not say that people have a constitutional right to physician assisted suicide. It deferred the assisted suicide decisions to the states - that is why the Oregon assisted suicide law is legal.
> >You see, I know that when Humphrey and Kevorkian speak of "death
> with dignity" they are talking about cutting us out of the herd.
>
It is a long process to explain why I think this and I would like to elaborate on it, but my partner is hungry so I'm signing off for the day. More later, if you want to continue this discussion?
Best, Marta