Fight fear of the disabled

Scan page 12

I WANT to take issue with Kath Munby's letter in Socialist Organiser 62 on the 'Downs Syndrome Case' . It is simplistic and dangerous to imply that it is a woman's right to choose' whether her baby lives or dies.

LIFE and SPUC clearly have the most reactionary motives in pressing prosecu tions of this sort. They have no more real concern for the welfare of handicapped babies than they have for women who become pregnant unwillingly.

Their purpose in trying to prosecute doctors like Dr Arthur is to draw the link between "babykilling" and abortion. They have lost the anti-abortion argument parliamentary terms and in "public opinion' '. To win it again requires mobilising a reactionary backlash against abortion - and what better way to do it than through emotive publicity about the way abortion leads to the "killing' of defenceless. lovable intants.

Obviously, socialists want no truck with this kind of movement. However, I don't think we can reply by drawing a link between abortion and allowing severely handicapped babies to die - and arguing that in both cases it is a woman's right to choose.

On the contrary, we must argue that the two most certainly are not the same.

A woman's right to choose un abortion is argued on the basis that the woman is the bearer of the foetus. She alone can carry it for the requisite nine months. Her body is necessary to nurture it.

No-one else can take over that role, and therefore no-one else has the right to say that the toetus must be nurtured and brought into the world. It's the woman's body and she alone should decide to what uses it is put.

The case of a newborn handicapped baby is a difterent one altogefher. After birth, the baby has social relationships with people other than its mother. or at least the possibility of them. It's quite feasible for the baby to be brought up without the mother ever secing it again.

As socialists and advocates ot women's liberation we argue that the raising of children should be a social question. and not simply d problem for individual parets. It's completely inconsistent to argue this on the one hand, and then argue that mothers should have : the right to choose whether their babies live or die.

After all. we do not say that parents should have the right to choose whether their children should go to school, or even what school they should go to. We support the principle that if parents abuse their children, social services have the right to step in and take appropriate action, including. if necessary, taking the child away, whatever the parents' wishes.

In short children have rights that foetuses don't have. and they have these rights (or should have) whatever their age and Whatever their handicaps.

Similarly. socialists should be fighting for the rights of the disabled. We want a massive increase in the facilities, homes, and other social provisions. We also want far more money and resources going into medical research into cures for disabling diseases, and into technical research and production of machines etc that cater for the needs of the physically handicapped.

Les Hearn has recently taken up some of these issues in the Science column, when he mentioned the uses that computers have for the disabled.

We should counteract READERS who saw the prejudice, ignorance and fear of the disabled that is endemic in society. We want disabled people to be able to play the greatest role in society that they can.

No-one would underestimate the trauma facing a mother or couple whose eagerly awaited baby turns out to be severely handicapped. But the generalised prejudice about handicaps undoubtedly plays a part in their reaction. In fact, this is probably particularly true in the case of Down's Syndrome, where its popular name 'mongolism' is associated with racist attitudes.

If we are to defend the disabled, who remain one of the most heavily oppressed sections of society and include many who are highly talented and intelligent, it's hard to also imply that it's all right to allow them to die at birth.

ANN EVANS, S. copy of the issue (April first