Disability Rights and Women’s Rights – Petition

 

http://www.generations-ahead.org/resources/the-unnecessary-opposition-of-rights

You may want to consider supporting this statement and sign on:

Letter / Call to Action

Robert Edwards, Virginia Ironside, and the Unnecessary Opposition of Rights

Please feel free to show your support and sign on to this statement below.

As people committed to both disability rights and reproductive rights, we believe that respecting women and families in their reproductive decisions requires simultaneously challenging discriminatory attitudes toward people with disabilities. We refuse to accept the bifurcation of women’s rights from disability rights, or the belief that protecting reproductive rights requires accepting ableist assumptions about the supposed tragedy of disability. On the contrary, we assert that reproductive rights includes attention to disability rights, and that disability rights requires attention to human rights, including reproductive rights.

We offer the following statement in response to two recent events that promote eugenic reproductive decision-making, and that further stigmatize disabled people by presenting disability exclusively in terms of suffering and hardship. Although seemingly disparate events, they share the presumption that disability renders a life not worth living and that people with disabilities are a burden on society. Moreover, they seem to imply that the only appropriate response to disability is elimination, thereby limiting women’s reproductive choices; they suggest that all women must either abort fetuses with disabilities or use IVF to de-select for disability.

The awarding of the 2010 Nobel Prize for medicine to Dr. Robert Edwards demands a more considered response. He has made no secret about promoting reproductive technologies to prevent the birth of disabled children, arguing that it would be a “sin of 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.” We protest any recognition of Dr. Edwards that also fails to acknowledge his discriminatory statements, and we dispute the notion that his political views should be isolated from his medical accomplishments. It is precisely this separation that pits reproductive rights against disability rights.

Edwards’ work has assisted in the birth of four million babies worldwide and has helped single people, people struggling with infertility, and gays, lesbians and transgender people to have biologically related children.

However, we can celebrate Edwards’ accomplishments and also call out his controversial advocacy against disability. In the same way that most of the articles celebrating his achievements acknowledge the religious and ethical controversies of his techniques, we can recognize his problematic disparagement of disability. The role he has played in increasing the reproductive options for women and families does not need to be justified or substantiated by arguing for an elimination of disability. It can be marked as an important reproductive option and means of creating families without denigrating disability or people with disabilities.

We also protest any use of disability by anti-abortionists in their criticism of Edwards and his work in developing assisted reproductive technologies. Many people with disabilities have used such technologies in creating their own families and recognize that IVF has made their families possible. Although we share the concern that women and families do not always have the information they need to make reproductive decisions about disability, and that stereotypes about disability persist, we do not think the response to that situation is to oppose assisted reproductive technologies or limit women’s rights.

The recent statements by British advice columnist Virginia Ironside about the “suffering” of disabled children similarly require a challenge from disability and reproductive rights supporters. In arguing for the right to abortion, Ironside stated that knowingly giving birth to a child with disabilities is cruel, and that in such cases abortion is the “moral and unselfish” response. She added that if she had a sick or disabled child, she would not hesitate to “put a pillow over its face,” as would “any loving mother.” Although Ironside’s comments about infanticide have been rightly condemned, her assertion that abortion is the only proper response to disability has prompted little controversy, as has her assumption that advocacy for abortion rights requires accepting the construction of disability as unrelenting tragedy. As reproductive rights advocates who are committed to disability rights, we refuse to accept the rhetorical use of disability as an argument for abortion rights. Reproductive rights demands not only access to abortion but also the right to have children, including children with disabilities, access to information about parenting, and the social and economic supports to parent all children with dignity.

In other words, we hold both disability rights and reproductive rights together, refusing arguments for women’s reproductive autonomy that deny disability rights, and refusing arguments for the human rights of people with disabilities that deny the right of women and families to make the best reproductive decisions for themselves.

Although our statement is motivated by these events, we recognize that these are only the most recent manifestations of long-standing prejudices against people with disabilities and of the use of disability stereotypes to undermine women’s and families’ reproductive autonomy and access to abortion. We hope, with this statement, to support other activists and scholars who are equally committed to both reproductive rights and disability rights. We hope that as advocates in movements that share similar values around civil and human rights we can continue to speak out against the use of reproductive rights to undermine disability rights and the use of disability rights to undermine reproductive rights. Reproductive rights and disability rights are intertwined.

Download Robert Edwards, Virginia Ironside, and the Unnecessary Opposition of Rights (PDF) http://www.generations-ahead.org/files-for-download/articles/DS-RJ-statement.pdf

Advertisements

One thought on “Disability Rights and Women’s Rights – Petition

  1. What I like about this statement is the way it demonstrates how undermining disability rights can, at the same time, undermine reproductive rights. As a society, by discouraging couples from bringing disabled children into the world, we are impinging on their reproductive rights. This seems right. However, the statement, in its effort to deny the opposition between reproductive rights and disability rights, discounts what I think is a real tension between the two. Ultimately, there are remarks in the statement that suggest we ought to come down on the side of reproductive rights when a decision between reproductive rights and disability rights has to be made.

    The following sentence suggests 1) that a tension exists, and 2) that we should come down on the side of reproductive rights:

    “Although we share the concern that women and families do not always have the information they need to make reproductive decisions about disability, and that stereotypes about disability persist, we do not think the response to that situation is to oppose assisted reproductive technologies or limit women’s rights.”

    The tension is between those who believe that the use of reproductive technology to select against disability interferes in some way, or runs counter to, disability rights (for example, by perpetuating discrimination or by shifting focus away from the social causes of disability) and those who believe that opposing the use of such technology amounts to limiting women’s rights. The fact that the statement explicitly rejects the response of opposing the use of such technology indicates where the writers of the statement stand on the tension just mentioned.

    I expect supporters of the statement might say that we should accept the continued use of the technology while vigorously challenging the misinformation, misconceptions, etc that pressure many women and families to choose not to have disabled children. I think this position would likely receive a lot of support. No doubt the Jonathan Glovers and Peter Singers of the world would also support it. Personally, I don’t think it’s a strong enough stand, nor do I think it’s the stand many supporters would take if the issue were using reproductive technology to select against other characteristics like sex.

    In Canada, we currently limit the use of reproductive technology in various ways. For example, it is illegal to pay for egg donation or for surrogacy, and I believe it is illegal to select for sex. In the sentence quoted above, I wonder how many would support it if the word disability were replaced by the word women. Should we allow families to select against having female children as a matter of respecting reproductive rights?

    Instead of allowing the use of reproductive technology to select against disability while challenging disability stereotypes, I think we should limit the use of such technology, as we do when it comes to paying for eggs and surrogacy, and for a similar reason (i.e., the harm that can be done to certain segments of our population in the absence of these limitations).

    I don’t think all uses of reproductive technology are, and always will be, wrong. However, we live in a world where women and families are pressured to use the technology in certain ways, and until this pressure is removed, we have one good reason to limit such uses of reproductive technology. Furthermore, we live in a world where the use of the technology arguably does harm to disabled people by perpetuating discrimination and shifting the focus away from the social causes of disability, and until the reproductive technology can be used without having these effects, we have a second good reason to limit such use. Finally, there has not been enough of a public debate on the use of this technology. Disabled people and their representatives need to be included in a meaningful debate about whether and how to regulate the use of reproductive technology, and until this debate, which really needs to be ongoing, has begun, we have a third good reason to limit the use of reproductive technology to select against disability. None of these reasons imply that selecting against disability is inherently wrong. They only suggest that there currently exist several reasons for why we ought to limit the use of reproductive technology to select against disability.

    Marc Workman

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s