>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.
The terminological distinction between impairment (physical) and disablement (social) makes sense & helps to clarify the social model of disability. I'll stick to the terms from now on.
>Eliminating impairment does nothing for our liberation.
I agree. Only a social movement against the oppression of the disabled, in the context of a socialist movement, can bring about the kind of liberation we need to work for.
By the same token, eliminating some impairments, via prevention or treatment, in itself does nothing to make the oppression of the disabled worse than it is. Impairment is one thing; disablement another. It is not against the interest of Thalidomide victims & other disabled to try to prevent the same or similar impairment from being caused in the future. It is not against the interest of polio survivors & other disabled to seek to eradicate polio.
>You are
>still seeing impairment as a personal tragedy, not an exclusion from
>social membership.
A personal tragedy & an exclusion from social membership are not mutually exclusive. Impairment _can_ be both (though not necessarily so) -- especially if it is (A) acquired later in one's life (B) through an event caused by oppressors. The Ron Kovic case -- becoming maimed because of an imperialist war -- is a good example. One _can_ overcome grief over one's feelings of losses, but probably not because others -- even advocates of the rights of the disabled -- tell him/her that losses are all due to social exclusion, not at all due to physical impairment per se. I accept the social model of disability, as well as inevitability of aging & death, but I still don't want to get sick, run over by a car, hit by a bullet, etc. -- I fear pain & generally avoid foreseeable causes of it.
>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.
That many people, soldiers as well as civilians, get killed, maimed, diseased, psychologically traumatized, etc. in & after any war is a good reason to work to bring about a socialist world in which war is unnecessary, if not the only reason. It's one thing to have an impairment because of aging, i.e., that which cannot be abolished; it's entirely another thing to be impaired due to acts of oppressions like imperialist war, racist brutality, gay bashing, rape, etc.!
>Further abortion of impaired fetus is not about curing them, it is
>about eliminating them. So to connect curing impairments with
>abortion is misleading.
Fetal surgery & treatment are fast advancing, so it is not true to say that prenatal diagnosis of impairment is solely or even mainly for the purpose of eliminating impaired fetuses today (not to mention in the future), especially in the USA where anti-abortion sentiments are strong & heroic medicine in vogue. See, for instance, Maggie Jones, "A Miracle, and Yet," _New York Times_ 15 July 2001: Section 6; Page 39; Column 1. In fact, here is a ground to link the interests of feminism & advocacy of the rights of the disabled, in that excessive prenatal intervention is detrimental to both, particularly in a society like ours.
>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.
The elimination of some impaired fetuses is _current_ reality, but fear seems to me to be the word to describe an argument that the elimination of _some_ impaired fetuses (some of which are so lethally impaired that you don't object to their elimination either) is either likely or surely to lead to the elimination of _all_ impaired fetuses, whatever degree of impairment, & even to the elimination of the disabled altogether in the _future_.
The world isn't striving for "perfect" babies. If it were, it would begin by instituting universal health care, decreasing environmental pollutions, bringing about egalitarian socio-economic development, etc. It hasn't _even_ managed to abolish nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, etc.!
Today there is no shortage of babies & adults with physical impairments -- many of the physical impairments could have been prevented or alleviated -- & there will be no such shortage in the foreseeable future. A cause for relief? I don't think so.
Yoshie