Status Updates From Trust Women: A Progressive ...

I’m not religious but interested to learn more about this perspective!!!

this gonna be a slow read for me but v intriguing perspective

Only now, at the end of the book, do we acknowledge that abortions can be coerced as part of domestic abuse? Only NOW?!!!!!!

Oh, so you understand the social model of disability but still refuse to acknowledge that abortion can be used as a tool of eugenics?

Get wrecked, Reverend.

Again, stop dismissing disabled people's fears about eugenics! Stop it!

So she IS aware of how deeply uncomfortable disabled people are with aborting po

And she's framing parents and disabled people as two different categories. As if there aren't people who are both!

Wow. And comparing disabled people's opinion to pro-lifers. That is so fucking insulting. People ALREADY think that it's better to die than be disabled.

Also yes, these pro-life groups ARE coming after IVF, so stop referring to IVF as proof of pro-lifer's hypocrisy.

It is, of course, but Reverend, you REALLY need to be more nuanced, even with all your talk of nuance. Your cisnormativity is the LEAST of your problems.

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.

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.

This book is blowing my mind. Everyone should read it.

I am only a few chapters in but can recommend this as a helpful perspective to anyone who has an opinion about abortion.

“It’s time to stop saying ‘Abortion shouldn’t be used for birth control ‘ and start saying ‘How can we ensure that all sexually active women have free and unimpeded access to effective forms of birth control?’” Brava!!!!