Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
> However, according to the social model of disability that you
> advocate, it is not biological qualities of fetuses but social
> relations that disable individuals (temporarily or permanently or
> progressively), so it follows that it is impossible to "wipe out" the
> disabled through selective abortion without also abolishing disabling
> social relations. Even the healthiest who can best approximate the
> ever-changing fantasy of "normality" cannot but become disabled if
> they live long enough, since our world doesn't make it easy for the
> elderly to thrive. Your fear that selective abortion may "wipe out"
> "disabled fetuses in toto as a class/group of fetuses" seems to
> return us -- against your professed intention -- to a biological
> model of disability, much as the fear of some gay men & lesbians that
> the discovery of "gay gene" may lead to selective abortion & genocide
> of "homosexual fetuses" betrays a biological model of sexuality,
> despite gains made by historical approaches to understanding
> sexuality.
I should have written "impaired fetuses" to be accurate. Here in the
US people use disabled when they need to use impaired. I just did
that here cause I am so used to reading it everywhere that way. But
there is a distinction which I made earlier. Impairment *is*
biological...disablement comes from the social relations that can
result from impairment. Impairment is the physical, disablement the
social condition. I don't think this equals a biological model of
disability though I understand how I created that confusion.
>
> There is, however, a possibility that the incidence of some -- though
> far from all -- categories of physical conditions may decrease
> through prenatal diagnosis & selective abortion. Must we fight
> against this possibility, motivated by your fear? If so, the same
> fear logically demands that we fight against medicine (curative as
> well as preventive), worker-safety regulations, consumer-safety
> regulations, better nutrition, democratic education, egalitarian
> socio-economic development, etc. also, since all of them are known to
> contribute to the decrease in many kinds & degrees of disability.
>
First of all, it isn't a "fear." That is always a patronizing way to
dis someone's argument (It doesn't seem rational or one may not want
to see what is going on, therefore it must be "fear"). It is present
reality that the elimination of impaired fetuses is a daily occurrence
-- that is the world we live in. It is a world striving for
"perfect" babies.
Yes we do have to fight against the oppressive ableism that is evident in the present. As Paul Abberley puts it "Impairment is the material substratum upon which the oppressive social structures of disablement are erected." Oppression is the result of human agency.
Eliminating impairment does nothing for our liberation. You are still seeing impairment as a personal tragedy, not an exclusion from social membership. That does not mean that we don't want to provide people with the best environment and care as possible but not because they may become impaired, because it is the just thing to do. When Ron Kovic used his impairment as a pity ploy to engage anti-war sympathy, it was the same thing. That is a sucked reason for ending war -- because there are people in the world, including everyone of us by aging, who will have an impairment.
Further abortion of impaired fetus is not about curing them, it is about eliminating them. So to connect curing impairments with abortion is misleading. I am not against research and Jim is correct to point out that Reeve is coming from a medical model view of his situation. That has been the criticism leveled at him, he doesn't talk about discrimination or rights, he only wants to be cured. Well he is very socialized to that position, isn't he.
I have to get up very early tomorrow to take Tom to work because his truck broke down today - so I cannot finish this thread tonight.
Marta