Are We Saying That Society Would Be Better Off Without Down’s Syndrome Babies?

This is part six of a dialogue about having a late-term abortion between Ayelet Waldman, author of Bad Mother: A Chronicle of Maternal Crimes, Minor Calamities, and Occasional Moments of Grace [2], and Elizabeth Weil, a contributing writer for the New York Times Magazine and the co-author, with Dara Torres, of Age is Just a Number: Achieve Your Dreams At Any Stage In Your Life [3]. You can read part one here [4], part two here [5], part three here [6], part four here [7], part five here [8], and part seven here [9].

It's remarkable how many people have reached out to me since I've gone public with our abortion story. I've received literally hundreds of e-mails from women who've gone through experiences similar to ours. This is one of the reasons that I've called for a national “coming out.” It's so much easier to vilify a fantasy, but when the object of your loathing turns out to be your friend or your sister, then suddenly things become much more complicated, suddenly you become capable of seeing shades of gray when once the world looked black and white.

So I agree, by all means, let's open the discussion wider, both for people to share their personal stories, and to engage in the kind of honest and respectful debate about abortion that I hope we're capable of having.

I think it's important when we discuss abortion, and when we try to reach common ground, that we avoid false moral equivalencies. This is the danger of straining toward compromise. In watching the media response this past week to Tiller’s murder, I've seen a tendency toward creating a moral equivalency between clinic workers on the one hand, and on the other, radicalized protestors who target doctors, clinics, and women, hurling abuse and operating websites that act like hit lists. This is highly problematic. If there were crowds of pro-choice protestors picketing Randall Terry's house and pouring superglue into the locks of his cars (why do I imagine him driving a fleet of Hummers?), then I'd be willing to see them set up as straw men and women in opposition to the likes of Operation Rescue. But of course, there aren’t. And I'm not even going to address the Bill O'Reilly notion that somehow it's reasonable to compare Dr. Tiller to his murderer.

But again, things start to get muddy for me. Who, then, is the "opposition" with whom we must reach compromise? Abortion opponents who don't take illegal actions? Or the woman who chose not to have an abortion, and then gave birth to a baby with Down's Syndrome? When NPR was considering running a piece by me about my abortion, they told me that they needed balance, and I wondered, am I going to end up in a debate over whether people with Down's Syndrome deserve to be born, to live?

A commenter on my first post asks that very question [5]. The answer makes me incredibly uncomfortable. No one likes to think of herself as a proponent of a contemporary form of eugenics. And yet, in some cobwebby corner of my mind, I fear that this is what I am saying. I absolutely believe that it's fine to abort a mentally retarded baby. I have no doubt in my mind that I would do the same thing again. I'd go to any legal length to defend another woman's right to do the same. But then aren't I simply saying that people with developmental disabilities are better off dead? Or, perhaps more accurately, that we as a society are better off without them?

Now I've got a knot in my belly. Where's that think tank full of bioethicists when you need them?