Richard Dawkins: Immoral not to abort a fetus with Down's

[Mama Mia]

That's a good question, and I think the answer is that each woman needs to decide for herself where she wants to draw the line. I grew up in a moderate (no protesting outside clinics or nonsense like that) pro-life home, and the reason I became pro-choice around age 12 or 13 was that we had a few kids who I'm-not-allowed-to-properly-describe-on-this-forum in my school, and I was thinking that I would want to abort them.

My first immature reaction was to think "okay, it should be allowed to abort this kind of fetus, but not all others.", and I think went with that for a few months and was happy, until I started thinking that I might also want to abort a fetus if I knew it would be blind (no offense to blind people who are sometimes really cool!). I thought I probably wouldn't want to abort a fetus who would be deaf, and then I found myself confused, because why would it be morally okay to abort a blind fetus but not a deaf one?

Why should I have the right to decide which fetuses can be aborted and which ones can't? I think we had discussed blind vs deaf in school or something, and I remembered there were a few people who said they'd rather be blind than deaf (btw, Hellen Keller said that too), so presumably they'd rather have blind children than deaf ones, and why should I get to decide for everyone? Anyway, shortly after that I became pro-choice.

The blind and deaf example brings up an interesting point, and one of the ethical concerns I have with women terminating pregnancies due to non life threatening medical conditions.

Although I do think women should have that right -because it seems kind of ludicrous to say " yes you have the right to have an early abortion because you don't feel you have the financial/emotional resources at this time EXCEPT if the baby has a medical condition that will require greater financial /emotional resources than most children, in which case you can't terminate"

So let's take a hypothetical situation , where Mary has pre-natal testing in 1994 that shows that her unborn baby will be deaf. She thinks that life wil be exceptionally frustrating and difficult for her child because he won't be able to talk on the phone or watch television or communicate with anyone but the very small number of people who speak sign language. She doesn't think he wil have a very happy or productive life so she reluctantly decides the better option is to terminate the pregnancy. Fast forward to 2014 and someone who is deaf can communicate with anyone through text or social media. He can also just turn on closed captioning to watch television and additionally many, many infants and toddlers are growing up learning sign language.of course being deaf is still a challenge ---- but much, much less of a life altering barrier than 20 years ago. And not even due to medical advances - but just due to changes in society.

[utter solitude]

The blind and deaf example brings up an interesting point, and one of the ethical concerns I have with women terminating pregnancies due to non life threatening medical conditions.

Although I do think women should have that right -because it seems kind of ludicrous to say " yes you have the right to have an early abortion because you don't feel you have the financial/emotional resources at this time EXCEPT if the baby has a medical condition that will require greater financial /emotional resources than most children, in which case you can't terminate"

So let's take a hypothetical situation , where Mary has pre-natal testing in 1994 that shows that her unborn baby will be deaf. She thinks that life wil be exceptionally frustrating and difficult for her child because he won't be able to talk on the phone or watch television or communicate with anyone but the very small number of people who speak sign language. She doesn't think he wil have a very happy or productive life so she reluctantly decides the better option is to terminate the pregnancy. Fast forward to 2014 and someone who is deaf can communicate with anyone through text or social media. He can also just turn on closed captioning to watch television and additionally many, many infants and toddlers are growing up learning sign language.of course being deaf is still a challenge ---- but much, much less of a life altering barrier than 20 years ago. And not even due to medical advances - but just due to changes in society.

Oh, what a good point you bring up!

That's just one of the possibilities you have to consider when faced with that situation. "Is there a cure for this? Will there be one soon? In ten years, will the qualify of life for those with ____ be better?"

They are tough, tough questions, and I do not think someone in the situation of "your baby has/may have _____" takes any decision, whether it be abortion, adoption, or raising the child, lightly.

[twin2]

As soul-destroying as Tay Sachs is, you don't know how I feel about "redacted" people. I went to school with a few of them who couldn't talk, walk, or communicate in any way. They sat in their wheelchairs and got pushed around everywhere so their parents could pretend they were a normal kid going to school. They drooled all over themselves, pooped all over themselves and occasionally made weird moaning noises. Apparently they could swallow food, but it would have to be baby food spooned into their mouths by their helper because they were to stupid to bring food to their own mouths or chew. If I were their parents, I would prefer that they also couldn't swallow food, if you know what I mean.

I'm really, really beginning to think you and Zsu were separated at birth. It is eerie the level of hate you both share.

[momof2treasures]

IFTR, it's not unusual to be pro choice and feel strongly that you would choose to terminate based on a disabling condition. Many people feel that way. It is just disturbing to hear the underlying tone of disgust you seem to have for anyone you deem disabled. That is a term you can use btw. These are people and being disabled is not a one size fits all term. Just because the students in your school made you feel uncomfortable or more possibly afraid, doesn't mea that they have any less right to exist than you do. The hateful comments you slip in amongst intelligent conversation is off putting and makes you seem immature.

[Grimalkin]

The blind and deaf example brings up an interesting point, and one of the ethical concerns I have with women terminating pregnancies due to non life threatening medical conditions.

Although I do think women should have that right -because it seems kind of ludicrous to say " yes you have the right to have an early abortion because you don't feel you have the financial/emotional resources at this time EXCEPT if the baby has a medical condition that will require greater financial /emotional resources than most children, in which case you can't terminate"

So let's take a hypothetical situation , where Mary has pre-natal testing in 1994 that shows that her unborn baby will be deaf. She thinks that life wil be exceptionally frustrating and difficult for her child because he won't be able to talk on the phone or watch television or communicate with anyone but the very small number of people who speak sign language. She doesn't think he wil have a very happy or productive life so she reluctantly decides the better option is to terminate the pregnancy. Fast forward to 2014 and someone who is deaf can communicate with anyone through text or social media. He can also just turn on closed captioning to watch television and additionally many, many infants and toddlers are growing up learning sign language.of course being deaf is still a challenge ---- but much, much less of a life altering barrier than 20 years ago. And not even due to medical advances - but just due to changes in society.

I can't and won't argue with someone who chooses to abort a Down's syndrome fetus because they feel they cannot, are not capable, or plain don't want to.

If your argument is "they won't be able

to have a life worth living" I will call you out.

I realize you are using an example of something they have made vast improvements on this makes me cringe because Deaf people read write, read lips with a fair amount of accuracy. Many Deaf people are against the implant, and feel very strong ties to the Deaf community. Check our Gallaudet University if interested in Deaf Culture.

[RosyDaisy]

I shouldn't feed the troll, but I can't help it. IFTR, what would you do if had a child that suddenly became mentally challenged or otherwise disabled due to an illness or injury or an autistic child?

You seem to have some sort hatred and/or disgust of people with disabilities. Why is that?

[Mama Mia]

I can't and won't argue with someone who chooses to abort a Down's syndrome fetus because they feel they cannot, are not capable, or plain don't want to.

If your argument is "they won't be able

to have a life worth living" I will call you out.

I realize you are using an example of something they have made vast improvements on this makes me cringe because Deaf people read write, read lips with a fair amount of accuracy. Many Deaf people are against the implant, and feel very strong ties to the Deaf community. Check our Gallaudet University if interested in Deaf Culture.

I don't really understand your point? I'm not sure what is making you cringe, and I didn't say anything about the implant. What I was trying to convey is that making a decision regarding terminating a pregnancy based on whatever barriers or challenges the parent perceives will exist for a particular child--could be problematic as changes in medical care or even just the wider culture, could make any particular condition less difficult during the course of the child's life

[bea]

Sure, it could. But the only person who gets to decide whether or have an abortion, whether it's for a "trivial" reason like a non-fatal disability, a "good" reason like a fatal prenatal diagnosis, or simply because she doesn't not want to go through a pregnancy, is the woman who is pregnant. It's her body. You can disagree with the choice she's making, get angry about the prejudice against the disabled in our society, you can have any feelings you happen to have about her decision.

In the end, it doesn't matter what you think. It's her decision. And if you think her reasons aren't good enough, tough shit. Still not your choice.

[Mama Mia]

Sure, it could. But the only person who gets to decide whether or have an abortion, whether it's for a "trivial" reason like a non-fatal disability, a "good" reason like a fatal prenatal diagnosis, or simply because she doesn't not want to go through a pregnancy, is the woman who is pregnant. It's her body. You can disagree with the choice she's making, get angry about the prejudice against the disabled in our society, you can have any feelings you happen to have about her decision.

In the end, it doesn't matter what you think. It's her decision. And if you think her reasons aren't good enough, tough shit. Still not your choice.

Aw, gee, and here I thought we were a bunch of grown- ups having an intelligent and interesting discussion about a variety of hypothetical situations. And that as grown-ups we could discuss nuances and ethics without having to fall all over ourselves to add "in my opinion" after every sentence. Silly me. :roll:

[It'sFunToRun]

IFTR, it's not unusual to be pro choice and feel strongly that you would choose to terminate based on a disabling condition. Many people feel that way. It is just disturbing to hear the underlying tone of disgust you seem to have for anyone you deem disabled. That is a term you can use btw. These are people and being disabled is not a one size fits all term. Just because the students in your school made you feel uncomfortable or more possibly afraid, doesn't mea that they have any less right to exist than you do. The hateful comments you slip in amongst intelligent conversation is off putting and makes you seem immature.

I am immature, and I am trying to work on it. I appreciate you guys talking to me like an adult though. :)

I have a question for you. What makes a human a human: his body or his mind?

If in the year 3,000 some mad scientist transplants a carrot's brain into a human's body (I was going to pick a slug or fly or something but even they manage to feed themselves), is the resulting creature human? What rights does it deserve and why?

[It'sFunToRun]

"Mentally handicapped". That's the phrase you're avoiding. It's like you're trying to draw attention to the fact that a whole new rule had to be made because of you, and I have no idea why you'd want to do that. There are neutral words to use for what you're describing, not just the slur you made a huge thing about.

That aside, your position is.... extreme, but similar to my own. XD

What would you do if you used all the available testing, but ended up with a severely mentally challenged child? One that would require round the clock care?

I don't want to use the politically correct term because I disagree with being politically correct. I'll just make up my own term. I was thinking that "pants-shittingly stupid" might get the point across, but I dislike that it might be offensive to people like Stephen Hawking who can't control their bowels because their body failed them. "Hard-of-thinking" is funny, but I think some of them can't think, not just that it's hard for them. "Intellectually insufficient" is an understatement. I'll use "redacted" until I can think of something better.

If I accidentally gave birth to a redact, I would find a conservative Christian couple who homeschools and doesn't take government aid to adopt it. It would be a win-win situation because the couple would spend their time and resources caring for it instead of campaigning against abortion. The redact wouldn't be guzzling educational resources from children (except maybe the couple's other children, but they probably wouldn't be getting much of an education anyway). The redact wouldn't suffer because it would be too stupid to know the difference. I wouldn't give it to the Pearls, btw, because no matter what some people think, I don't actually want them to suffer, I just don't want myself to suffer because of them.

[It'sFunToRun]

I shouldn't feed the troll, but I can't help it. IFTR, what would you do if had a child that suddenly became mentally challenged or otherwise disabled due to an illness or injury or an autistic child?

You seem to have some sort hatred and/or disgust of people with disabilities. Why is that?

For the first question, I don't know. There is such a broad range of disabilities. I think I would be just as good at taking care of and loving a blind child or a one-legged child or an ADHD child as anyone else would. My problem is only with redactation, not other health problems.

For the second question, I already said I went to school with two kids who couldn't communicate, walk, eat on their own, and basically just sat there, shat their pants, drooled on themselves, and occasionally made weird groaning noises. I just don't see what the point is in keeping someone like that alive, and I think it's a shame to budget educational resources to them when there are normal kids who are struggling and could thrive with a little one on one tutoring.

A couple summers ago, I was trying to decide whether I would theoretically keep a fetus with Down Syndrome, so I read a shitton of blogs and articles about Down Syndrome, and this will shock everyone who knows me, but I actually decided that I would keep it (theoretically). Then about a week later I was on a bus and a group of adults with high level redactation (ones who could talk, walk, and even take the bus in groups) got on and I noticed how everyone else on the bus kinda grimaced and hoped they wouldn't sit next to them, and the people who they talked to seemed really uncomfortable, and everyone was relieved when they got off at the next stop, and I thought that even if my kid might be cute when it's a child, it's not fair to society when it becomes an adult. I want to make the world a better place, and I know that there are no guarantees with any child, but I don't want to bring a child who I know will be a burden to society.

Hope that wasn't too trollish for you ;)

[maybeizfundie]

trollish? IDK. But kind of gross and really disturbing.

Why are you the arbiter of who benefits society, based on cognitive ability? And what if "value to society" is not merely based on mercenary concepts like how much money is spent on education, but on less crass things. Like human interaction, diversity, and learning to respect and be compassionate based on inherent humanity rather than cognitive ability?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/29/opini ... .html?_r=2

[Mama Mia]

A couple summers ago, I was trying to decide whether I would theoretically keep a fetus with Down Syndrome, so I read a shitton of blogs and articles about Down Syndrome, and this will shock everyone who knows me, but I actually decided that I would keep it (theoretically). Then about a week later I was on a bus and a group of adults with high level redactation (ones who could talk, walk, and even take the bus in groups) got on and I noticed how everyone else on the bus kinda grimaced and hoped they wouldn't sit next to them, and the people who they talked to seemed really uncomfortable, and everyone was relieved when they got off at the next stop, and I thought that even if my kid might be cute when it's a child, it's not fair to society when it becomes an adult. I want to make the world a better place, and I know that there are no guarantees with any child, but I don't want to bring a child who I know will be a burden to society.

Hope that wasn't too trollish for you ;)

Just an FYI, people react that way to any sort of visible disability. They either stare or, more commonly, avoid any eye contact. If they engage in conversation it is generally while using a tone of voice like you are a four year old. Or outright asking " what happened to you?" It's extremely disconcerting and depressing ( to me anyway) . So it really isn't just people with Down's syndrome who get that reaction in public, it's anyone noticeably " different".

[utter solitude]

I don't want to use the politically correct term because I disagree with being politically correct. I'll just make up my own term. I was thinking that "pants-shittingly stupid" might get the point across, but I dislike that it might be offensive to people like Stephen Hawking who can't control their bowels because their body failed them. "Hard-of-thinking" is funny, but I think some of them can't think, not just that it's hard for them. "Intellectually insufficient" is an understatement. I'll use "redacted" until I can think of something better.

If I accidentally gave birth to a redact, I would find a conservative Christian couple who homeschools and doesn't take government aid to adopt it. It would be a win-win situation because the couple would spend their time and resources caring for it instead of campaigning against abortion. The redact wouldn't be guzzling educational resources from children (except maybe the couple's other children, but they probably wouldn't be getting much of an education anyway). The redact wouldn't suffer because it would be too stupid to know the difference. I wouldn't give it to the Pearls, btw, because no matter what some people think, I don't actually want them to suffer, I just don't want myself to suffer because of them.

You are replacing a SLUR with another word, thereby you have not stopped using the slur. In the way you're describing, the phrase "mentally retarded" absolutely fits. "If I accidentally gave birth to a severely mentally retarded child" is what you can say there. However, "the redact" is ridiculous, you're continuing to use a slur. Using slurs hurt your argument. I actually have no desire to continue this line of discussion because of it. (This has no bearing on the discussion, but your insistence on using the slur without using the word itself really makes me see you as a troll. You're trying to get a rise, and this will be the only rise you get from me.)

[Curious]

A couple summers ago, I was trying to decide whether I would theoretically keep a fetus with Down Syndrome, so I read a shitton of blogs and articles about Down Syndrome, and this will shock everyone who knows me, but I actually decided that I would keep it (theoretically). Then about a week later I was on a bus and a group of adults with high level redactation (ones who could talk, walk, and even take the bus in groups) got on and I noticed how everyone else on the bus kinda grimaced and hoped they wouldn't sit next to them, and the people who they talked to seemed really uncomfortable, and everyone was relieved when they got off at the next stop, and I thought that even if my kid might be cute when it's a child, it's not fair to society when it becomes an adult. I want to make the world a better place, and I know that there are no guarantees with any child, but I don't want to bring a child who I know will be a burden to society.

Hope that wasn't too trollish for you ;)

To the bold: This is not a problem with the people with Downs Syndrome or any other kind of disability, whether physical or mental. That behavior is a problem with SOCIETY. I'll tell you how I know.

I look perfectly normal, because I am. My legs don't work right because I have a fucked up spine. My official diagnosis is partial paraplegia. Looking at me, you would not know why exactly I'm in a wheelchair though. People have the exact. same. reaction. to me.

A lot of people are really uncomfortable around people that are not like them, particularly disabled people. It used to really bother me when I was first disabled, mostly because I was disabled rather suddenly at a relatively young age (29). Now, many years down the road and having come to accept my own disability and process my interactions with many more people, I think it mostly comes from a sort of "there but for the grace of God go I" type of mentality.

People just don't want to think about the bad things that could happen and people that have the audacity to be DIFFERENT and go out in public remind those people that bad things exist/can happen etc.

I grew up with a mom that had MS, so I was around people with various levels of functioning and I wanted to be a special ed teacher when I was a kid so I volunteered in the special ed class during my free periods and study halls from 6-12 grades. So I have had a lot of experience with folks who are "different" and when I was first disabled I didn't understand the reaction from other people.

Two incidents with kids helped me understand a little better.

1. My friend had a 4 year old son and I love kids so I was always happy to see him at dog shows or whatever and he was very standoffish with me where he was always friendly with other people. It made me sad because I really do like kids. He had always only seen me in the wheelchair. Then one day they came over to our house to bring us a foster dog and I was using canes to walk around in the house. He was still pretty standoddish, but more friendly than he'd been. When my friend got home, she called me laughing. When they got out in the car her son said "MOM! Curious is just like a real person only her legs don't work right!" From that point on he was fine with me and my buddy. He's an adult now and if I call to talk to his mom and he answers the phone we usually chat for a while first.

2. Once when we were at the mall, we got in the elevator with a family that had a couple children, including a little boy that was probably 5-6 years old. He kept inching over to me until he could touch my hand and finally he started patting me on the hand and said "you don't scare me. My uncle is in a wheelchair!" His mother wanted the elevator floor to open up and swallow their whole family ;) I just smiled at the boy and looked at the mom to let her know I wasn't offended because the elevator was at the next floor by then.

The behavior of people is one reason I don't particularly care about "person first language." Whether you call me a disabled person or a person with a disability doesn't matter one little bit unless the BEHAVIOR changes.

[Rescinded and Mended]

Not exactly late to the party, just watching and thinking it through.

Here's the thing. I've seen a number of people across multiple threads here on FJ try to think and plan in absolutes when it comes to a disabled child. It goes without saying, that we, as parents, don't know what we will actually do until we arrive at that critical juncture. I've seen situations where a child becoming disabled brings out the best in parents and caretakers, and I've also seen it bring out the worst in them. Families will often become closer in strengthening their bonds of solidarity through dealing with a child's disability, or they'll fall completely apart and at least one family member will leave. I've seen it happen both ways.

How we, as parents, handle such a catastrophic event depends on many things. The amount of outside support we have in place, the amount of money needed for medical care, and the time, therapies, and other extra resources that may be required are all important factors in how well we are able to cope.

The truth is, profound disability can happen at any stage of life, and can occur through any number of circumstances. The circumstances involving a child being diagnosed with and eventually deteriorating from a disease are not specific to childirth. Neither is an accident which could leave a child profoundly disabled. I had a perfectly happy and healthy nine-year-old son who had nothing more serious than allergies, right up until the time I didn't. And then we were welcomed into the hell that is cancer.

It'sFuntoRun, you've made it very clear and in very strongly-worded terms that you absolutely never want to raise a child that is severely disabled. I'm genuinely curious, no snark involved, what would you do if you had a child that was healthy for x amount of years that suddenly became disabled? You would already be attached to the child, so what would your next course of action be?

I'm also curious if you've ever considered tubal ligation. Again, I'm not picking on you. By becoming pregnant, choosing to carry the pregnancy to term, and keeping the baby (barring the desire to adopt it out or abandon it), you are agreeing to not only raise the child but you are also agreeing to accept responsibility for the fact that it may one day become seriously ill or disabled, whether you have considered that possibility during the pregnancy or not. Not on your timetable, and not a type of disability you feel is acceptable or one that you feel you could effectively care for in a child; by getting pregnant, you are simply accepting that something could happen one day to your child that you have absolutely zero control over. And you may not even realize it. I sure never thought about any of that when I was pregnant.

So what I'm trying to say is, the only way you are ever guaranteed to have total control over the outcome of your child's birth, development, and overall health over the course of its life would be to simply never become pregnant at all.

As strongly as you feel about this issue, would you consider a tubal ligation to ensure that you never had a disabled child? Or would you become pregnant and come to accept that it could be a possibility?

[Marianne]

A couple summers ago, I was trying to decide whether I would theoretically keep a fetus with Down Syndrome, so I read a shitton of blogs and articles about Down Syndrome, and this will shock everyone who knows me, but I actually decided that I would keep it (theoretically). Then about a week later I was on a bus and a group of adults with high level redactation (ones who could talk, walk, and even take the bus in groups) got on and I noticed how everyone else on the bus kinda grimaced and hoped they wouldn't sit next to them, and the people who they talked to seemed really uncomfortable, and everyone was relieved when they got off at the next stop, and I thought that even if my kid might be cute when it's a child, it's not fair to society when it becomes an adult. I want to make the world a better place, and I know that there are no guarantees with any child, but I don't want to bring a child who I know will be a burden to society.

Hope that wasn't too trollish for you ;)

But your blind or one-leged child WILL be a burden to society. I'm physically disabled. I AM a burden to society. My country pay 12 000 € for my electric wheelchair, my society pay 500 €/month for my medication, my employer pay more than 400 000 € to install a lift in my place of work, my university will pay more for me when I will begin my doctoral thesis next year than it would have pay for a normal students.

You seem to believe that only severe mental disabilities are a "burden to society" but physicall disabilities are also a burden. It cost a lot (okay, maybe in the USA you have not the problem of the cost). I'm only in an electric wheelchair and can walk a little (Elers Danlos Syndrom and problem from severe starvation in the childhood), and when I took the tramway and metro every day, people grimaced and did not want me to be in the tram. People have the same reaction for high functionning Down Syndrom or people in wheelchair or blind.

[It'sFunToRun]

You are replacing a SLUR with another word, thereby you have not stopped using the slur. In the way you're describing, the phrase "mentally retarded" absolutely fits. "If I accidentally gave birth to a severely mentally retarded child" is what you can say there. However, "the redact" is ridiculous, you're continuing to use a slur. Using slurs hurt your argument. I actually have no desire to continue this line of discussion because of it. (This has no bearing on the discussion, but your insistence on using the slur without using the word itself really makes me see you as a troll. You're trying to get a rise, and this will be the only rise you get from me.)

I agree that I shouldn't have used such incendiary language. :shrug: You live you learn.

Also, that doesn't count as a rise in my book. :D

[It'sFunToRun]

Just an FYI, people react that way to any sort of visible disability. They either stare or, more commonly, avoid any eye contact. If they engage in conversation it is generally while using a tone of voice like you are a four year old. Or outright asking " what happened to you?" It's extremely disconcerting and depressing ( to me anyway) . So it really isn't just people with Down's syndrome who get that reaction in public, it's anyone noticeably " different".

That's a good point and I didn't think of it before. I totally agree that people on a bus would have somewhat of a negative/uncomfortable reaction to a blind person or a person in a wheelchair getting on, but I don't think it's on the same scale.

I know that I personally would not feel as uncomfortable with a blind person or a person in a wheelchair, and now that I'm aware of it, I'm going to try not to be uncomfortable at all (I do believe that we have a lot of control over our comfort, at least I do).

[It'sFunToRun]

To the bold: This is not a problem with the people with Downs Syndrome or any other kind of disability, whether physical or mental. That behavior is a problem with SOCIETY. I'll tell you how I know.

I look perfectly normal, because I am. My legs don't work right because I have a fucked up spine. My official diagnosis is partial paraplegia. Looking at me, you would not know why exactly I'm in a wheelchair though. People have the exact. same. reaction. to me.

A lot of people are really uncomfortable around people that are not like them, particularly disabled people. It used to really bother me when I was first disabled, mostly because I was disabled rather suddenly at a relatively young age (29). Now, many years down the road and having come to accept my own disability and process my interactions with many more people, I think it mostly comes from a sort of "there but for the grace of God go I" type of mentality.

People just don't want to think about the bad things that could happen and people that have the audacity to be DIFFERENT and go out in public remind those people that bad things exist/can happen etc.

First of all, that sucks that you get treated poorly. I will try not to do that to other people in wheelchairs now that I am aware of it.

I'm not sure I agree with the reason why you think people act annoyed/uncomfortable around people in wheelchairs. I've never been disabled, so there's no reason that I should know better than you, but it seems to me that people feel uncomfortable around disabled people because they are afraid of offending them. For example, someone mentioned that if you have a disability, people won't look at you, and I think that's because as little kids our inclination is to stare at people with disabilities, then adults tell us that we're being rude, so as to not be rude we look away and ignore the problem all together.

I have dual citizenship, US and another country that I prefer not to name, even though it's probably pretty obvious to people who read a lot of my posts. I've spent a lot of time in both, and in my country people touch a lot more, are less afraid of offending other people, and get offended less easily. I think this makes us less uncomfortable around disabled people, because for instance if we see a blind person getting on a bus, someone will jump up and grab their arm and guide them to a seat, whereas in more polite places people are too afraid they will offend the blind person by acknowledging their difference, so they'll stay in their place, but then the bus starts to move and the blind person doesn't know where the railings are so you're afraid that they might fall down and land on you, which makes you nervous. It's a cultural thing, because I can't tell a blind person that they are wrong for getting mad when a complete stranger touches them when they didn't ask for help, but in other cultures that is the norm.

If people wouldn't hesitate to point out your difference, for instance say to you "hey, do you want help getting your wheelchair up the curb?", "maybe since you're in a wheelchair, you want to have an aisle seat?" do you think that would be a good thing or a bad thing? I can only guess what I'd prefer, since I've never been in your position.

Btw, I dislike calling you "disabled" because it sounds like it means "un-abled" which is false. I like "handicapped" better because it reminds me of horse racing, where it makes it harder for the horse to win, but he's still in the same race. I'll call you "disabled" though anyway because I assume that's what you prefer.

[It'sFunToRun]

It'sFuntoRun, you've made it very clear and in very strongly-worded terms that you absolutely never want to raise a child that is severely disabled. I'm genuinely curious, no snark involved, what would you do if you had a child that was healthy for x amount of years that suddenly became disabled? You would already be attached to the child, so what would your next course of action be?

I have no idea. I don't think anyone could know until they're in that circumstance. I wouldn't kill them if that's what you're thinking. Off hand I can think of four options:

1) Take care of it myself

2) Put it in hospice care/ group home

3) Try to find someone to adopt it (I realize that if it's out of babyhood this isn't likely)

4) Legally not take the medical steps that would keep it alive (this is a legal option in some cases, but not others)

I'm also curious if you've ever considered tubal ligation.

No way! I've already mentioned that I'm pro-choice, and I also have no moral problem with birth control, but it's my dream to have a quiver full :) Life is full of risks. When I ride the bus I'm risking becoming paralyzed in an accident, but I do it anyway. It would be a sad life to be so afraid that something will go wrong.

[Mama Mia]

That's a good point and I didn't think of it before. I totally agree that people on a bus would have somewhat of a negative/uncomfortable reaction to a blind person or a person in a wheelchair getting on, but I don't think it's on the same scale.

I know that I personally would not feel as uncomfortable with a blind person or a person in a wheelchair, and now that I'm aware of it, I'm going to try not to be uncomfortable at all (I do believe that we have a lot of control over our comfort, at least I do).

I think you probably more likely notice the reactions to people with Downs Syndrome or other intellectual disabilities ( many of whom actually aren't born with those limitations, but have traumatic brain injuries) , because that's a hot button issue for you. The same way if someone is biased against Latinos or Homosexuals or Skinny Blond White Women WhO Look Like Their Face Was Stretched too Thin ( not that that's my own bias or anything :whistle: ) they will be more likely to notice anything they find objectionable about that group, or people's reactions to that group. And then once you notice it, you see it everywhere.

I certainly never noticed how uncomfortable other people are around people who are noticeably disabled, until I became one. One of the weirdest things, to me, is the number of people who will say some version of " God Bless You" to me.....in my super lefty town where people just don't talk about religion in public. To complete strangers. It's very, very odd. :?

Anyway, no snarking, I think it's great you are looking at what your biases are and attempting to adjust your behavior. That's really hard to do. :clap: :clap:

[It'sFunToRun]

But your blind or one-leged child WILL be a burden to society. I'm physically disabled. I AM a burden to society. My country pay 12 000 € for my electric wheelchair, my society pay 500 €/month for my medication, my employer pay more than 400 000 € to install a lift in my place of work, my university will pay more for me when I will begin my doctoral thesis next year than it would have pay for a normal students.

You seem to believe that only severe mental disabilities are a "burden to society" but physicall disabilities are also a burden. It cost a lot (okay, maybe in the USA you have not the problem of the cost). I'm only in an electric wheelchair and can walk a little (Elers Danlos Syndrom and problem from severe starvation in the childhood), and when I took the tramway and metro every day, people grimaced and did not want me to be in the tram. People have the same reaction for high functionning Down Syndrom or people in wheelchair or blind.

I didn't think about that. This is at least the fourth time in this one thread that I've either misunderstood something or missed something completely. I feel stupid. :embarrassed: I should probably take a break from criticizing the intelligence of other people.

[RachelB]

I did summer care for six years for a child / teen with a significant developmental disability (not Down) and impulse control problems, who was initially expected never to be toilet trained, who was not expected to talk.

The initial assessments he received were wrong. Understanding him is easier if you've already spent some time with him, but he's definitely communicative. He's unlikely to ever live independently or to do some of the things he yearns to do (e.g., driving), but he's sociable enough to enjoy a group home where he could get assistance with stuff he can't do on his own.

It was a good experience, and a terrible one, and an exhausting one. I spent a lot of time and energy learning his thought and communication patterns, trying to figure out how he might best learn new skills, being excited with him when he figured something out (like the first time he rode a bike), brainstorming how the heck a person might handle developmentally normal teenage moodiness minus some resources for emotional management that most people have.

Working with him changed me. Before I worked with him, my ideas about cognitive capability and consciousness were a lot more rigid, and a lot more black and white, than they are now.

Working with him also helped me realize I didn't want to parent, not so much for reasons having to do with developmental disability. My best way of dealing with frustration, anger, or other emotions I don't want to inflict on someone else is to go walk it off. And that doesn't work if the person you're frustrated with is a child.