Earlier this week I drew your attention to the August edition of the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand newsletter, in which ALRANZ, in their haste to support the eugenic abortion of people with Down syndrome, actually ended up giving their support to the sex-selective abortion of NZ girls (in fact they opened the door up for abortion on ANY grounds).
Today I think it is worth focusing on the confused and contradictory logic that is employed by the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand (ALRANZ), in this same August newsletter, in order to try and maintain support for both disability rights, and the eugenic abortion of people with disabilities.
So let’s get started with the dissection of the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand article…
“ALRANZ takes a firm position on valuing all life…”
Okay, so from the get-go we know things aren’t quite right because ALRANZ, the staunchly pro-abortion, ‘unborn human beings have no right to life or intrinsic worth’ organization is suggesting that it firmly values “all life”.
If that truly were the case then they wouldn’t support abortion, because, obviously, abortion is the act of terminating an innocent human life.
“…and believes that negative social attitudes toward people of varying abilities diminishes the worth and value of such people. In these situations, the availability of abortion is not the reason women make decisions to terminate pregnancies after confirmation of a disability.”
Uh, yeah, something tells me that if abortion wasn’t actually available then there wouldn’t be the en masse aborting of disabled babies human beings going on (73% of babies with Downs in NZ alone).
Having said that, you are definitely right that abortion isn’t a ‘reason’ to have an abortion; that would be like saying that ‘stealing a car’ is a reason to steal a car – it doesn’t make any sense.
“Abortion is not the problem…”
You’re right, abortion is only part of the problem here, the other part is that it is being used to selectively destroy persons with disabilities or genetic variations that aren’t socially acceptable in this oh-so-enlightened modern era.
“…stigma and lack of social services to help families is the driving force behind such decisions.”
Is this an admission from the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand that a large percentage of these abortions are taking place because of social prejudice against people with disabilities, and because of a lack of resourcing and funding in this area?
It certainly looks like one to me.
So why then do ALRANZ later in this same article go on to give their full support to these eugenic abortions?
“Some of the media coverage around the use of voluntary screenings seems to suggest the medical profession and pro-choice activists are only interested in producing abled-bodied individuals.”
Firstly, I can’t recall any direct accusations against pro-choice activists in this regard, and secondly, the focus of the groups opposed to this eugenic screening is not so much about the motivations of the system, but rather the fact that it is inherently unjust in its targeting of people with disabilities or genetic differences.
“Tapping into such a hard and emotive issue makes it very difficult to sort out the anti-choice rubbish from the great work being done by disability rights activists.”
This sentence really doesn’t make a lot of sense, what the heck is meant by the phrase “tapping into”?
And what does the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand mean by disability rights activists, because surely that also includes those disability rights groups who oppose the eugenic screening of unborn human beings based on their genetics or abilities/disabilities?
“It feeds into most people’s discomfort about talking about such issues, both abortion and disability.”
As Yoda would say: ‘a very telling sentence this one is’.
Firstly, it sees ALRANZ actually acknowledging publicly that mainstream NZ is not at all comfortable with the idea that we should be aborting human beings based on their disabilities and genetic variations – yet that’s exactly what ALRANZ give their full support to later in this article, thus putting themselves well outside mainstream NZ.
Secondly, why should there be any issue with talking about abortion, if, as ALRANZ keep trying to insist, abortion is a simple and straightforward process with no ethical implications to be considered (apart from those regarding the actual lead up to, and execution of the procedure)?
Most people don’t have discomfort with an openness about having appendectomies, or laser surgery, yet when it comes to abortion it’s a completely different story.
Perhaps it has something to do with conscience and the ethics of the act.
“In short, anti-choicers continue to be vigilant, seeking out new opportunities to promote their own anti-woman agenda.”
Three ad hominem attacks in one little sentence:
1. calling pro-lifers ‘anti-choicers’ has a nice little pro-abortion ring to it, and it helps to perpetrate the myth that anyone who opposes the act of aborting human beings on ethical grounds is somehow out to deny us a legitimate choice (not sure when ending innocent human lives became a legitimate choice though).
2. calling it ‘their own’ agenda implies that the pro-life ethic isn’t grounded in sound and universal ethical logic, instead it sounds like something kooky and fringe (and maybe even a little bit conspiracy theory-esque)
3. referring to the pro-life ethic as ‘anti-woman’ is a pretty lame, outdated and oh so cliched piece of meaningless nonsense
But wait, there’s more, and the logic doesn’t get any better…
“For our part, ALRANZ opposes the current abortion regime under which the state controls abortion access through a set of narrow grounds, including the ground that targets “seriously handicapped” fetuses… This singling out of the “seriously handicapped” by the abortion law is one more reason all specific grounds for abortion should be eliminated and New Zealand’s abortion law should be decriminalized, giving women the right to make their own abortion decision for their own reasons.”
How’s that for a logical black hole?
‘We oppose the singling out of people with disabilities for abortion, instead we’d rather have it so that people can abort unborn human beings for any reason whatsoever’
Sounds like equal opportunity discrimination to me.
‘Don’t think that people with Downs syndrome should be born? That’s fine with us here at ALRANZ’
‘Don’t think that females should be born? That’s fine with us here at ALRANZ’
‘Don’t think that mixed race babies should be born? That’s fine with us here at ALRANZ’
They’ve really covered all their bases with that last statement where they give their full support to a NZ law which would allow abortion for ANY reason whatsoever.
“We also reject as offensive and exaggerated claims that the screening programmes constitute ‘genocide’, ‘eugenics’, or ‘ethnic cleansing’, as some abortion opponents claim.”
I would suggest that the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand might want to do a bit more research about what actually constitutes eugenics, because one of the key aspects of eugenics is the attempt to eradicate those who have undesirable genetic traits.
“This is certainly not to deny the societal pressure some women feel to both undergo screening and to abort fetuses identified as having disabling conditions.”
Hold on, so now you’re actually supporting one of the key arguments AGAINST prenatal screening – the fact that unexpected adverse prenatal diagnosis is difficult for many couples, and this, coupled with the social undercurrent of prejudice against Down syndrome creates a form of very powerful coercion towards abortion.
“As a pro-choice group, we fiercely oppose any form of coercion in medical care, including coerced abortion and coerced pregnancy in all its forms, both subtle and overt, and will continue to advocate – as we always have – for adequate support for all pregnant women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term.”
No offense ALRANZ, but this statement, particularly the last part of it, just doesn’t ring true at all.
Where is the intense lobbying against the Chinese coerced abortion policy, especially considering that NZ has entered into a free-trade agreement with the Chinese, and we have reasonably regular visits from their dignitaries.
And where is all the lobbying for easier access to adoption in this country, after all, that’s another pregnancy related choice, yet it is one that is woefully legislated and managed in this country.
Telling people that you are something doesn’t make it so, and anyone with half an ounce of commonsense can see that the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand is simply a group dedicated to lobbying for liberalized abortion laws.
“Choice also means being fully informed about your pregnancy – something anti-abortion advocates frequently invoke in their efforts to introduce restrictive “informed consent” requirements for women seeking abortion. So why would they want to prevent women from accessing that information by shutting down antenatal screening programs?”
The twisted irony in this statement is truly something to behold.
What ALRANZ is saying here is that they oppose informed consent when it comes to abortion (they call it “restrictive”), yet when it comes to informing women that they are carrying human beings with disabilities they think women should definitely be informed about that.
The only reason that ALRANZ supports the later, while scorning the former, is because the former poses a threat to their pro-abortion ideology, whereas the later doesn’t.
And let’s not forget that this is the same ALRANZ who just sentences ago was telling us that there is a “societal pressure” to abort unborn human beings identified as having disabling conditions.
So why now would you give unqualified support to thrusting such pressure upon women in the form of prenatal screening?
“The answer to concerns over the pressure to produce “perfect” babies is not to end antenatal screening, but to join with disabilities rights groups and others in fighting for a society that welcomes everyone, and gives each woman the freedom to make her own decision.”
Logically speaking, this is starting to feel like swimming in a vat full of philosophical treacle.
So ALRANZ believes that we should be fighting for a society that “welcomes everyone”, does that also include the unborn human beings that are unwelcome and aborted as a result of ALRANZ’s pro-abortion ideology?!
And the answer to eugenics is to support the ideology that says that people should be able to choose eugenic abortions if they want to?!!!
That’s like suggesting that encouraging people to embrace the freedom to be racist is the answer to racism.
Honestly, this is like watching a married man, whose just been caught out in public with his mistress, by his wife, desperately trying to keep both women happy while attempting to explain the whole incident away.
“As Dr. Marsha Saxon of the World Institute on Disability put it so well: “Real ‘choice’ must include the choice to have a child with a disability”. If that is not a reality for some women, the cause is not information but discrimination.”
Actually, I think there is a typo in here, and that this is meant to be a quote attributed to Dr. Marsha SAXTON, and if it is then I don’t know if she would appreciate being used to bolster support for prenatal screening.
My understanding is that she is not supportive of genetic screening practices. Just consider this quote from one of her public presentations…
This must be our concern with genetic reproductive technologies, but the stakes are much greater. The marketing of reproductive genetic products, like diet foods, sells us the option to choose an individual solution to what are really deep social problems. The price for this genetic fix can sometimes be enormous personal, economic, emotional and physical health costs. But we are often so desperate to get what we want and that we are willing to pay any price…
Are reproductive technologies, dispensed as individual solutions to personal medical problems, actually nurturing and empowering the lives of all women, and thus the life of each woman?
Is our defensiveness about, and our romance with “choice” leaving us vulnerable to exploitation by commercialism, tricking us into thinking we are empowered by all these options, when we are not?
In the late 1800’, medical “science” brought us eugenic ideology, which resulted in racist, and disability-discriminatory public policy in the U.S. which then migrated to other countries and evolved in more virulent ways. There were fewer products to sell in that early era of capitalism but what was created was a trendy ideology we are still haunted by.”
Somehow I think that Dr. Saxton would be none too pleased (assuming that its her that ALRANZ is quoting here) with the suggestion from the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand that choosing disabled people should be coupled with the ability to reject and destroy disabled human beings via abortion.