The case I wrote about, about the Michigan mother who attempted to murder her autistic daughter, has now gone nationwide, and at least one autism activist has started a petition calling for her to be prosecuted as a hate crime. I am not so sure that this qualifies as a hate crime, as such, but it is a very disturbing case.
What I am afraid of is that we are running head-on into the rights of two competing groups and one of them is going to have to lose. The arguments I hear defending the mother's actions--she was desperate, she was at the end of her rope--are all too reminiscent of the arguments feminists used and still use to defend "freedom of choice." And we all know who lost on that one. Now, nobody--at least that I am aware of--is actually advocating at this time that she ought to have had the right to choose to end her daughter's life--but--
It is a fact that most of the caregiving is done by women. Women who often feel trapped. These women don't have the options a pregnant woman does. It's too late for that. How long before feminists start demanding that women be released from caring for a child she does not want or cannot care for? How long before the arguments start that a severely disabled, especially a mentally disabled, child is not truly or fully human? Is not really a person? That yes, he or she might be capable of expressing love, but so do dogs and cats. And we have no problem euthanizing dogs and cats when they are no longer welcome in our lives for any reason whatsoever.
In fact, these arguments have started already. So far they are confined to the halls of academia and in books that the general public is not likely to read. The gist of the argument is, what does it mean to be human? What distinguishes humans from animals? And why should humans have more rights than animals? The trend seems to be to devalue the mentally handicapped human and elevate the "non-handicapped" animal. I find this disturbing. All it takes is one or two cleverly argued court cases.
So far all we have heard from this case is the mother's side. The daughter's voice is not heard. And now it may never be heard. I understand that the mother wrote a very bitter blog about what it was like to care for her. The daughter is powerless, voiceless, like so many autistic minors. Yes, some of us are starting to speak up and protest, but will our voices be heard?
God help us if it turns out that autism is a genetic condition that can be detected prenatally. I guarantee you that if that happens our numbers will start shrinking just as the numbers of people with Down's syndrome have shrunk. Those of us who then make it to adulthood will truly be the survivors.
What I am afraid of is that we are running head-on into the rights of two competing groups and one of them is going to have to lose. The arguments I hear defending the mother's actions--she was desperate, she was at the end of her rope--are all too reminiscent of the arguments feminists used and still use to defend "freedom of choice." And we all know who lost on that one. Now, nobody--at least that I am aware of--is actually advocating at this time that she ought to have had the right to choose to end her daughter's life--but--
It is a fact that most of the caregiving is done by women. Women who often feel trapped. These women don't have the options a pregnant woman does. It's too late for that. How long before feminists start demanding that women be released from caring for a child she does not want or cannot care for? How long before the arguments start that a severely disabled, especially a mentally disabled, child is not truly or fully human? Is not really a person? That yes, he or she might be capable of expressing love, but so do dogs and cats. And we have no problem euthanizing dogs and cats when they are no longer welcome in our lives for any reason whatsoever.
In fact, these arguments have started already. So far they are confined to the halls of academia and in books that the general public is not likely to read. The gist of the argument is, what does it mean to be human? What distinguishes humans from animals? And why should humans have more rights than animals? The trend seems to be to devalue the mentally handicapped human and elevate the "non-handicapped" animal. I find this disturbing. All it takes is one or two cleverly argued court cases.
So far all we have heard from this case is the mother's side. The daughter's voice is not heard. And now it may never be heard. I understand that the mother wrote a very bitter blog about what it was like to care for her. The daughter is powerless, voiceless, like so many autistic minors. Yes, some of us are starting to speak up and protest, but will our voices be heard?
God help us if it turns out that autism is a genetic condition that can be detected prenatally. I guarantee you that if that happens our numbers will start shrinking just as the numbers of people with Down's syndrome have shrunk. Those of us who then make it to adulthood will truly be the survivors.
