Status Updates From Trust Women: A Progressive ...

We acknowledge that the other woman whose baby had health problems loved the baby regardless of Down Syndrome.

But please, just stop using her in this. You've already done her a big disservice through the way you framed her pregnancy termination. Just stop mentioning her.

Actually, maybe some people are also compassionate towards women whose pregnancies endanger them because THEY'RE NOT EVIL.


Sure, some people might extend compassion for misogynist reasons, but tying it EXCLUSIVELY to misogyny is not a good look.

Gah! Why do you keep bringing up aborting the disabled as a not-bad thing?

"Unacknowledged prejudices", yes. But maybe examine how a disabled person would feel about that and what it says about disabled people's lives. I.e. "better to never be born than be disabled". How PROBLEMATIC that idea is and how damaging it is culturally?

Is it really about protecting babies for the pro-life side, though? Is it? The tired old cliche of "they would support social programs if that was the case" comes to mind.

Also, yes, pro-lifers really do plan on coming for IVF embryos, Reverend Peters. Good gravy, you REALLY need to stop bring up topics that require more nuance than this.

Admittedly, her history of the anti-abortion movement does make up for her mishandling of several sensitive, nuanced topics. The fact that the AMA was originally created by some disgustingly amoral physicians to distinguish themselves from charlatans even though THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO THE NEW AND IMPROVED PRACTICES EITHER is actually interesting.

Enough to save it a couple of stars.

“-the problem is not recognizing that abortion is a moral issue. The problem is that we do not trust women to make moral decisions about their bodies, their lives, and their families.”

Ok, ma'am, I think that abortion for sex selection is one of those issues that you're not equipped to talk about.

Like, it's created some genuine problems in the rest of the world.

It may not happen often, Rev. Peters, but abusive partners attempting to coerce pregnant people into abortions DOES happen. That's why legitimate abortion clinics like Planned Parenthood take the would-be patient inside and check to see if that's the case before proceeding.

Therefore, dismissing the possibility for the sake of argument is highly disrespectful.

Wow I did not expect a few pages to fill me with such rage, but here we are.
It feels like this woman is not only ignoring disabled perspectives, but at times talking down to people who might object to her logic regarding potentially disabled prenates as well as disabled people themselves.

The neurotypical perspective is the ONLY perspective she allows.

TO BE CLEAR: this is not a judgment who abort their prenates. But if the SOLE REASON you're aborting your pregnancy is because the prenate will potentially be disabled in life, you SERIOUSLY need to have a long, long conversation with yourself about how you view disabled people.

Now, if disability is only ONE reason among many- i.e., you don't feel your marriage is stable enough - that's different.

Only one page in and it's already clear that this woman has a very, VERY able-bodied, neurotypical perspective regarding this specific aspect of abortion rights.

That is not a good thing. That is a BAD THING.

PLEASE. I BEG YOU. SPEAK TO DISABLED ACTIVISTS, WOMAN!

Oh, NOW she mentions ableism as a contributing factor as to why people support terminating potentially disabled fetuses?

This woman's reasons are clearly NOT based in eugenics, giving that she was willing to have a disabled baby anyway, before she discovered all the other potential health problems that could impact the length of the baby's life. Yet with this framing, she could be interpreted as eugenics-based in her reasoning, and Ms. Peters doesn't seem to CARE that eugenics as a reason for aborting might put off certain people.