[a] This type of genetic testing is typically done BEFORE the mother conceives. No one is talking about abortion. From the article:
Van de Water notes that with these maternal biomarkers, there are possibilities for very early diagnosis of MAR autism and more effective behavioral intervention. The study opens the door for more research on potential pre-conception testing, particularly useful for high-risk women older than 35 or who have already given birth to a child with autism.
“We can envision that a woman could have a blood test for these antibodies prior to getting pregnant. If she had them, she’d know she would be at very high risk of having a child with autism. If not, she has a 43% lower chance of having a child with autism as MAR autism is ruled out,” Van de Water said.
Van de Water is currently researching the pathologic effects of maternal autoantibodies using animal models. “We will also use these animal models to develop therapeutic strategies to block the maternal autoantibodies from the fetus,” said Van de Water.
“This study is a big deal in terms of early risk assessment for autism, and we’re hoping that this technology will become something that will be clinically useful in the future.”
[b] Just because someone gets genetic testing, doesn’t mean they’re going to get an abortion (as the article clearly implies). Again, a lot of genetic testing / screening is done BEFORE the woman conceives. And even if she gets a test AFTER she conceives, it doesn’t necessarily mean she’ll get an abortion. Some women would go ahead and have a baby anyways, because they feel confident they can handle it and be a good parent. This test is about allowing women to make INFORMED decisions. Knowing you have a higher risk of having a baby with certain disorders is a GOOD thing, because it means you can prepare in advance, whether it’s emotional or financial or educational preparation. Prepared parents make better parents.
[c] We’re not at-risk of a slippery slope, where genetic testing leads to some widespread eugenic campaign. We’ve had genetic testing / screening (both pre-conception and post-conception) for certain disorders / genetic abnormalities for years, and yet people with those disorders still get born all the time. No one here is proposing the eradication of people with disorders or disabilities or whatever.
[d] Equating abortion with literal genocide is offensive to victims of actual genocide. Those two things aren’t the same. A bundle of cells that can’t exist outside a uterus, isn’t the same thing as a full-fledged human being. One has feelings and consciousness and independence, the other does not.
Abortion is a medical procedure that a woman chooses for herself, genocide is a crime against humanity that is perpetrated against others. Please learn the difference.
FORCING women to get abortions can be a crime against humanity, for sure. But no one is proposing we force women to do anything. (The doctor is specifically talking about how this new research can be used for screening and therapy.)
Conversely, forcing / coercing / shaming women into have babies that they don’t want, as if they’re broodmares, is also pretty problematic. But that doesn’t seem to stop people from flapping their jaws and being judgmental.
[e] Using the term “genocide” to describe abortion is a common misogynistic right-wing extremist framing of a normal medical procedure that SOME women choose to get. The decision to get an abortion should be between a woman, any relevant family members, and her doctor. It shouldn’t be up for public scrutiny. Being anti-choice isn’t tolerated on this blog, and using that term to describe abortions ESPECIALLY isn’t tolerated on this blog. If you want to engage in that type of toxic language, then do it on your own blog.
[f] People who don’t want a baby (for whatever reason), make really, really, really shitty parents. We should not be encouraging / shaming these people into having children, when they do not want them. It’s counter-productive.
Also, people could WANT a baby, but just feel like it’s not the right time to have a baby (again, for whatever reason). They might make great parents, but just aren’t ready to be a parent right now. Encouraging / shaming these people into having a baby is also counter-productive.
Women can get abortions, or choose not to have kids, for any reason they want. And usually, a wide multitude of factors go into the decision. It’s not our place to judge / shame, or question their reasons. What is a “valid” reason to get an abortion? Any reason. End of story.
[g] Here’s the ACLU’s position on state efforts to ban abortion because a fetus has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome (not the same thing as autism, of course, but their arguments are still applicable to what you’re talking about):
The Offensive Hypocrisy of Banning Abortion for a Down Syndrome Diagnosis:
[…] There is no question that stigma, prejudice, and misconceptions about people with disabilities are widespread. But forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term against their will does nothing to tackle underlying and systemic ableism and discrimination against people with disabilities.
On the contrary, forced pregnancy threatens a person’s physical, mental, and emotional health, as well as the stability and wellbeing of their family, including existing children.
We will never address discrimination and the needs of people with disabilities by stigmatizing people who have abortions. We cannot know all the personal circumstances behind an individual’s decision to continue or end a pregnancy, including in cases of fetal diagnoses.
These decisions are often based on a multitude of factors — which is why the pregnant person and their family best make these decisions, and them alone.
Contrary to what anti-abortion politicians want you to believe, efforts to promote the rights of people with disabilities need not compromise other fundamental rights.
Indeed, the disability and reproductive rights and justice movements share common goals: for every person to decide what happens to their own body and for every person to have the rights, resources, and respect to live their full potential. They also share a common foundation in the principles of equality, dignity, and self-determination. […]
Putting women’s rights at-odds with disability rights is heinous, unnecessarily divisive, and doesn’t actually help anyone. Please educate yourself.
kianamaiart
stormborns
turnnoffyourmind
annaxmalina
romaincrisis
izzy806
andulkaphoto
jacobvanloon
