Category: Abortion and the Disabled

Author Pearl S Buck said, in a book, of her child who was born mentally handicapped as a result of the metabolic condition called PKU:

 “[by] this most sorrowful way I was compelled to tread, I learned respect and reverence for every human mind. It was my child who taught me to understand so clearly that all people are equal in their humanity and that all have the same human rights. None is to be considered less, as a human being, than any other, and each must be given his place and a safety in the world. I might never have learned this in any other way. I might’ve gone on in the arrogance of my own intolerance for those less able than myself. My child taught me humanity.”

Pearl S Buck, The Child Who Never Grew, 2nd edition (Bethesda, Md: Woodbine House, 1992) 70

Buck’s attitude and her love for her child standing contrast to the self-centeredness and misguided “compassion” of mothers who abort their handicapped children.

Share on Facebook

From Elizabeth R Schlitz. “Living in the Shadow of Monchberg: Prenatal Testing and Genetic Abortion” in the book Erika Bachiochi. The Cost of “Choice”: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion” (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2004) p 48

Disability rights activists maintain that “most people with disabilities rate their quality of life as much higher than other people think. People make the decision [to reject embryos] based on a prejudice that having a disability means having a low quality of life.”

Aaron Zitner, “A Girl or Boy, You Pick” Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2012:  A 1 quoting Deborah Kaplan, Executive Director of the World Institute on Disability in Oakland, California

Share on Facebook

The article Elizabeth R Schlitz. “Living in the Shadow of Monchberg: Prenatal Testing and Genetic Abortion” in the book Erika Bachiochi. The Cost of “Choice”: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion” (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2004) tells the  story of a woman whose prenatal test showed that her baby would have cystic fibrosis and who opted not to have an abortion.

The HMO initially denied medical coverage because the baby had “a pre-existing condition.” They eventually reversed the decision but they told the woman in essence: you knew about this condition before the baby was born. You could’ve prevented this baby from being born. You chose not to. Since you made that decision, you can find a way to pay for it.

Larry Thompson, “the Price of Knowledge: Genetic Tests That Predict Dire Conditions Become a Two-Edged Sword,” Washington Post, October 10, 1989. Z07

 

Share on Facebook

Bob Edwards, the scientist who created Great Britain’s first in vitro fertilization baby gave a speech at a fertility conference where he said:

“Soon it will be a sin if parents to have a child that carries the heavy burden of genetic disease. We are entering a world where we have to consider the quality of our children.”

Sunday Times (London) July 4, 1999 as reported in American Feminist, winter 1999 – 2000

Edwards puts forth the argument that couples who discover that their unborn babies have a genetic disorder or disease should not give birth to those children.

Share on Facebook

From a woman who had prenatal testing which showed that her son had Down Syndrome, yet chose to give birth to him and parent:

“Experiencing this testing sequence firsthand, however, gave me some insights into the potentially pernicious efforts of the prenatal testing process. The tests are all offered in the guise of “reassurance.” They all carry with them the implication that the responsible mother can and should do something constructive with the results: take extra iron if she’s found to be anemic, take AZT if she has HIV, abort the baby if he has Down Syndrome. If you lack the financial or other resources to raise a child with a disability, you could easily be swayed by an argument that the knowledge you now possess about the child gives you the responsibility to do something constructive to solve the problem – by doing away with the child.

Now, this argument could obviously be a powerful incentive for a person to choose an abortion. Going through this process personally made me acutely aware of its power…. What surprised me was that people did not stop making this argument once I had rejected it during the testing phase. When I started telling people that the baby I was expecting would have Down Syndrome, colleagues asked me incredulously, “Why are you having this baby?”… [After the baby was born] I found, to my astonishment, that society still kept asking that question – why did you have this baby? I have seen people react with marked surprise when they hear that I knew Petey would have Down Syndrome before he was born. Though they do not ask aloud, you can see the question in their eyes: “if you knew, why did you have the baby?” What’s buried in that question, deep in their eyes, is the perception of my son as a “choice” – specifically, my choice – rather than a unique human being created in God’s image, a full-fledged member of the human race.”

Elizabeth R Schlitz. “Living in the Shadow of Monchberg: Prenatal Testing and Genetic Abortion”  in Erika Bachiochi. The Cost of “Choice”: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion (San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books, 2004)

 

 

Share on Facebook

Marie Ideson was just over 16 weeks pregnant with a Down Syndrome child.

“I was bullied into going ahead with an abortion,” says Ideson, 46, a GP surgery manager. “I only wish I could turn back the clock. I think of the daughter I never had every day. I’ll always regret it.”

Ideson had an amniocentesis to determine if the baby she was carrying was disabled. She was told it was a routine part of pre-natal care. Four days later, she received a call from the hospital:

“A woman said, ‘I’m sorry to say your baby has Down.’ It was devastating. My first thought was, how will we cope?

“I told Allan I wanted to keep the baby and he agreed.”

Then she went into talk to the doctor, hoping that he would help her in her decision to keep her baby.

“We believed the hospital would be able to offer us reassurance that with the latest medical help, our baby would be OK. But doctors said she could be born needing emergency heart surgery and have bowel and muscle tone problems – and that was if she survived. At no time did anyone suggest we might keep our baby. A termination was presented as the only way forward.”

“A nurse said not aborting my baby would cause it to suffer, and she’d only become a burden on society if I went ahead. She even said, ‘99 per cent of women in your situation wouldn’t want the baby.’ Having it would be a burden on our other children, too, she said, especially if it was likely to need many operations throughout its life.

“Our children were at the hospital with us. I looked at them and thought the medical staff must be right.”

She decided to have the abortion, and took the tablet that would induce a miscarriage.

“I felt numb as I swallowed the tablet. I remember saying to Allan, ‘I just want to keep my baby.’ But he just kept saying, ‘But they must think the baby’s really bad, Marie – it’s for the best.’”

When she actually delivered her child, stillborn, she realized what a terrible mistake she had made.

“She was so small, but otherwise perfect. I started sobbing uncontrollably. What had I done? I realised I’d been bullied into taking that first pill. I felt overwhelmed by anger. I should’ve been sent home to think about all the options. It should’ve been pointed out that having my baby was an option and that, with medical advances, most Down babies go on to live happy lives.”
I felt so guilty and upset. I felt I should have kept her. And if Lillie wasn’t going to survive, I’d have been happier letting nature take its course.”

The abortion became an issue between Ideson and her husband.

“I knew he was devastated, too, but I was angry he’d allowed staff to rush me into getting rid of her. The feeling he didn’t support me when I needed him most festered between us.”

“The final straw came when I was in labour with Reuben [her next baby]. We were at home and the midwives wanted me to go to the hospital, but I told them I couldn’t go back to where I’d terminated Lillie. Allan tried to persuade me to go and, in the end, I had no choice. I felt, again, Allan hadn’t spoken up for me when I was at my most vulnerable. I couldn’t find it in my heart to forgive him.”

Like many couples after abortion, they split up.

“My eldest sons are 25 now. When I was pregnant with them, I knew of women who had babies with Down syndrome. Today, I never see mums with Down babies. I can’t believe that everyone who finds out their baby has Down syndrome willingly chooses to abort it. I can’t help feeling that other women must be having abortions they don’t want.”

Alison Squire Smith ‘I was bullied into aborting my baby” Herald Sun December 4, 2011 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/i-was-bullied-into-aborting-my-baby/story-fn6bn9st-1226213171981

Share on Facebook

Some prominent doctors cannot understand why women do not abort their handicapped children. Dr. Cecil B. Jacobson, Chief of the Reproductive Genetics Unit of George Washington University Hospital:

“I can’t imagine any reasonably responsible person arguing against the abortion of mongols [down syndrome babies]… If we could tell what fetuses are going to be affected with cancer in their 40s and 50s, I would be for aborting them now.”

Cecil B. Jacobson, Chief, Reproductive Genetics Unit, George Washington University Hospital, Washington, D.C. Psychology Today, September 1975, page 22.

Share on Facebook

“There is no evidence that the handicapped child would rather not go on living. As a matter of fact, handicapped persons commit suicide far less often than normal persons. An interesting study was done at the Ana Stift in Hanover, Germany, a center where a large number of children with phocomelia, due to thalidomide are cared for. Psychological testing on these children indicated that they do indeed value their lives, that they are glad that they were born, and that they look forward to the future with hope and pleasant anticipation.”

Eugene F. Diamond, MD

Eugene F. Diamond MD “The Deformed Child’s Right to Life” in Death, Dying and Euthanasia, Dennis J. Horan and David Mall, eds (Washington DC: University Publications of America, 1977) 133 quoted in Francis J. Beckwith “Politically Correct Death: Answering the Arguments for Abortion Rights” (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1993)

Share on Facebook

According to prenatal screening expert Eva Alberman, 92% of women who discover their carrying a fetus affected with Down syndrome choose to have an abortion.

The decision to abort a handicap baby is often framed in terms of concern for the child. Those who support killing these babies often say that they are sparing the children a lifetime of suffering. In reality, often the main reason why women abort their down syndrome children is that the children would be an inconvenience for them. Here is one example:

Natalie and Richard are a couple who aborted down syndrome baby late in pregnancy. Natalie gives the following reasons why she aborted:

“A seriously handicapped child takes a lot from your life that you wouldn’t otherwise have to give… We knew that a Down child would require, at best, constant care from us….”

This quote shows that the true reason that many women abort handicapped babies is their own unwillingness to make sacrifices. While this is understandable, there is a waiting list oof people willing to adopt handicap babies, especially babies with Down syndrome. Adoption is a viable option for these babies.

Mary E Williams. Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints (San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, 2002) 115

Share on Facebook

A woman with a special needs daughter wrote the following:

“My youngest daughter is 10 years old. Developmentally, however, she is more like an infant. She does not speak in words, cannot feed or dress herself, wears diapers and cannot walk without assistance. Hearing this litany of what she cannot do, many people would say it would have been better if she had not been born.

A few weeks ago, I attended a national conference on mental handicaps. Most of the participants were special needs professionals; many were parents. At one of the scientific sessions, a physician spoke about the remarkable strides which have been made in prenatal testing, making it possible to detect a whole host of genetic disorders in the womb. Now, of course, she said ominously, the “decision” can be made by the parents.

Her smug certainty that any “normal” parent would choose to get rid of a baby known to have some disability infuriated me. But what I found really astonishing was the temerity that allowed her to say such things to us, people who actually love and cherish the very children she is targeting for destruction. For us, they are not “the handicapped.” They have names and faces. They have their winning ways, their sweet charms, their difficult behavior patterns. They are our children and here she was telling us we had missed the boat by having them too soon, before the technology existed which would’ve allowed us to get rid of them.”

Joan McGowan, Human Life Review Spring/Summer 2000. Quoted in Mary E Williams. Abortion: Opposing Viewpoints (San Diego, California: Greenhaven Press, 2002)

Share on Facebook