>I have already stated *repeatedly* that I support a woman's right to
>choose. If you go back and read all the posts, I have never stated
>that I am against a woman's right to choose. That is NOT the issue
>here.
"I have always supported a womans right to choose, but that gets harder and harder to do, the deeper one explores what is really happening. It is in my own enlightened self interest to reject what can potentially kill me." --Marta Russell http://nuance.dhs.org/lbo-talk/9811/1029.html
but if the parents chose to abort a child that had down syndrome or autism or whatever, you would object to that, right? you're objecting to the technologies that enable people to make those decisions and you're objecting to those decisions.
you have suggested, in the past, that:
"The reason one would want to kill an infant after it was born would most likely be because they did not like the *particular* baby they got. With pre screening widely available, abortion has become a search and destroy mission to get rid of the disabled fetus."
it's too bad that people make these choices. they have their reasons, not all of them defensible and yet all of them are the result of living in the society they live in. the only reasonable thing to do, it seems to me, is attack productivism/ableism, not methods of abortion OR of pre-screening OR people who choose to abort OR feminists who support abortion on demand.
kelley
p.s., i read thru the archives. i don't find much there except justin's and others arguments revealing that Singer isn't as evil as he's been made out, etc. also, if you want to save k's, a link is sufficient rather than pasting the entire article.