Status Updates From Trust Women: A Progressive ...

Such as, for example, a marriage not quite stable enough. And oh, yes, this fetus having BRAIN CYST, heart defects, and possible bowel and kidney problems. This would put it more, in my opinion, in a "not compatible with life" category.
Yet Ms. Peters' narrative is framing the reasons as part of a disability light. Which is not great, because it does an injustice to the woman.

I'll admit, this is the first part of the book to actually make me mad so far. While failing to include trans men and non-binary AFAB people is not great, anti-abortion types are probably transphobic enough not to care either.

No, it's this whole talk about disability as reason for an abortion. This woman described has PLENTY of good reasons for an abortion besides disability.

Well maybe part of the stigma in regards to aborting babies with disabilities or birth defects depends on upon the disability.

If the disability isn't life-threatening, merely life-altering, then it can definitely be seen as a eugenics-based move, and not liked. Specifically BY disabled people.

Okay the failure rates for contraception have scared me.

I would not call parent-child a covenant, mainly because of abusive parents being a real thing.

Something not being a moral issue is not the same thing as saying that women can't be trusted to make decisions. That's...that's...

The statement that a woman's body and sexuality is central to her, even if she is "more than that", I find to be very wrong for many reasons. One, it ignores asexual people. Too, we don't say this about men, do we? It's still reductive, I think.

Otherwise so far it's pretty thought-provoking. But her arguments do leave out abortions for eugenics-related reasons. Which are NOT good.