Dear Ms Toynbee I am replying to your arrogant article about the Disability Rights Commission (DRC), the title of which is rubbish as you will by now have realised. If rights were for the living why are there any abortion rules at all? As a disabled person I want to point out the wrongs in your article which are oppressive and offensive to me and my "culture". The DRC is not allying itself with what you called "anti-abortion fanatics" it is acting against sections of the abortion act that discriminate against disabled people. That is what the DRC is for. The opening statement you made left me astonished and angry, can't you look at anything without sensationalising? I repeat the DRC are pointing out basic discrimination on the grounds of disability. If it was because of race or gender or sexual orientation would you think it was "breathtaking nonsense"? You say it is a "dismal beginning" for the DRC, I think that it's the most fundamental point that they have to address, i.e. our right to be different. You put "Foetuses are not people". Not the point. The act is about judging a foetus because it has different characteristics, I repeat, if the difference was gender or race, what then? Disability campaigners have not , as you say "over-identified with other civil rights issues", to say so is oppressive. We have every right to celebrate our difference, just because you think of us as "pathetic cripples" which your article suggests even though you cloak it to appear the other way, we think of ourselves as an equal part of diverse society. We want to be included, not genetically cleansed or aborted. The environment and people's discrimination and prejudice such as yours are the things that make our lives hard. Our bodies are not pathetic, they are different and proud and will fit seamlessly into an appropriately accepting and built environment. We are not an "imaginary race" of disabled people as you so disparagingly labelled us, we are a vibrant culture of people who celebrate diversity. Don 't abort us or change us, change your attitude. Why should a foetus be aborted because you can't accept it's mind or body difference? And deaf culture is a strong reality too. Would you abort a foetus that was going to speak French? Then why is speaking Sign Language worthy of the sentence of abortion? You said "On anti-abortion rallies, pro-Life groups always push forward a battalion of disabled people to plead that they would not be here if their parents had aborted them. Do we wish them dead, they challenge? This kind of madness is hard to argue with. No one is wishing them away, just as no parent of a born child, however inconvenient its birth, ever wishes it away." Wow! You either just don't get it, or you just can't handle us. You don't wish us dead, but you don't want anyone like us to be born again. Because ...... Why. We offend you? What if I said I don't wish Polly Toynbee dead but I will do everything in my power to make sure that noone with her characteristics and mind set will be born again and scar my world? She is too offensive and makes mistakes that hurt people, and makes their lives harder. We don't want any more like that. You condescendingly said " But the non-existence of the unborn seems to be a difficult concept for many to grasp." What patronising clap trap. It is not about the "unborn". It is about perceiving different characteristics in the "unborn" and discriminating against them. You said "No, this vanishes into the realms of absolute nonsense. For a woman to choose not to have a disabled child but to have another one instead is entirely rational." Why do you put "disabled" into the above statement? Go on, say why you really think why you should abort a "disabled" foetus. You said "The commission could have taken a far wiser route. They could have demanded equal rights to abortion for all with no stipulation about disability, just abortion on demand for any woman's private reason." That's what the DRC want, equal rights to abortion; equal as in not defining disability as a reason. Same terms for all. You said "However, since late abortion is allowed in the case of a disabled foetus, there is no reason why it should not be permitted on all grounds." The DRC aren't arguing about late term abortion, just the fact that it is only allowed because of disability. They want to know why it is allowed because of disability/different characteristics? You said "There are fewer than 100 late abortions a year on grounds of disability." If there were fewer than 100 abortions a year on grounds of gender would that be acceptable? Fewer than 100 girls, would that be fine? You said "Only the truly desperate, very young and menopausal women who don't recognise their pregnancy until too late would seek distressing late abortions if the law were changed. So if the commission wants "equality", why not go for the absolute right of all women to choose, whenever? The DRC did not ask that. That's your own invention. You said "The disability rights commission has set back the case, for the sake of a mad ideology of its own." What a breathtakingly ridiculous statement. The use of words alone shows you as a prejudiced person who thinks your characteristics are more valuable than other people's. Disabled people's rights are as important as women's rights, gay rights,and race rights. We are asking for equal rights and have every right to do so. I look forward to your response. Lindsay Carter Disabled activist From Ms Toynbee Sorry, we just aren't going to agree. You mention nothing about a woman's right to choose. And the DRC did not propose abortion on demand for all, but to restrict the right to abortion on the grounds of disability. Had they said equal rights whatever the prognosis for the foetus, and a woman's absolute right to decide at any point, i would have had no argument. Infact i would have praised them, even if I would still have their thinking illogical. |