I don’t for one minute think that this detracts from the neighbourhood at all, in fact I embrace these people being here.  My area affords easy access to transport allowing access to a variety of facilities and services.  It also means that if willing to work or engage in community activities it’s really easy.  I have to say most of these characters are pretty friendly and don’t cause any trouble – they are after all people with physical and intellectual disabilities, not nut cases or recovering drug addicts.  And all of the people that I’ve come across are engaged with groups that support and care for people with disabilities.  Often the live in units with one or two other housemates, making it more efficient for people working in disability support to help out (ie they can help three people at once rather than driving around to different locations to help the same number of people.)  And whilst it’s not a life that you’d choose to have, it’s not a bad one at all.  No one else in the neighbourhood gives every one a big smile and a greeting when you see them in the street.

My other exposure to people with disabilities comes through the work experience I did when studying Education.  I did most of my pracs in special schools.  After these pracs I was amazed a how wonderful most of these children were.  Their ability to learn as a normal child was impaired and their hope of a normal life was limited, but their lives were no less wonderful for not being normal.

Given this experience I am amazed to hear that the government has set up a committee to see if it’s appropriate to abort unborn children if they will have a disability.  My personal views aside, I can’t believe that the government or anyone else is even asking this question.  What makes a child who may have a disability any less entitled to being born than a normal healthy child?  Aren’t we all meant to be equal?  I also don’t like that people seriously debate this issue as if it is a legitimate question, especially as the answer in favour is based on huge assumptions about the quality of the child’s life to determine it’s value.  I don’t consider someone with a disability to have any lower changes of a happy, healthy, fulfilling life.  In fact I’d probably rate it higher.  Education and support services are so geared towards looking after people with disabilities that it means that unlike your healthy “normal” children they won’t end up drug addicts, are unlikely to end up in jail, are more likely to have an occupation (even if it’s not an income earning one).  People with disabilities that are purely physical also have just as much chance of completing their education and having a career – they may just require a little more help and support to do so.  However arguements about quality of life just don't wash with me.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think that it is hard to have a family member with a disability, especially a severe one, and that if parents do proceed with the birth but give the child up for adoption they may never have a loving happy home to be raised in, but that’s more about us than the child in question.

The other thing that we need to remember about this is that things can always go wrong in utero and also during the birthing process.  So a child that may appear normal after gene screening and ultrasounds (or whatever those imaging things they do now are called), may still be affected by conditions caused by the birth process – some of these conditions such as Cerebra Palsy can cause quite severe disability.  There is absolutely no way to guarantee a child is free of disability when born and so we probably shouldn’t even consider intervening as we have not guarantee of success.  Whilst I believe that abortion can be appropriate if the mother’s life is at risk or if the child is at risk of dying or is already dead in utero, but this is extreme and perverse and I can not believe that our government needs a group of people to decide if it’s right or wrong.