Not such a dilemma after all, then

Thank God for Virginia Ironside, who in yesterday's Independent cleared up the whole complex moral question of aborting potentially disabled babies. Responding to an anguished reader who has taken the difficult decision to have an abortion because her child would have been disabled, Virginia reassures her that actually it would be completely wrong not to have an abortion in that situation.

"What parent," Virginia asks, "would knowingly give birth to a child who she knows is going to be born at a dreadful disadvantage, probably having to suffer endless operations, pain and suffering for what may be a very short life?" A very bad one, I think we are meant to conclude.

That's that then - if in doubt, don't give birth to that handicapped person. It's a good job we've got hacks like Virginia to sort out these issues, as the people who are supposed to be qualified to do so - the Priests, the philosophers, the Reader's Digest - are still dragging their feet and debating them endlessly. And if only we'd had the technology to identify potential disabilties in previous centuries, we might have avoided the lives of Ray Charles, Stephen Hawking, Lord Byron, Beethoven, and every single one of those athletes who has won a medal in the paralympics. And if Professor Hawking was reading this, I'm sure he'd be the first to agree he should never have been born - though I fear he's currently too busy answering questions from all around the world about the first ever discovery of a triple quasar in space. Tsk - the life of a quadriplegic, eh.

But even if Hawking were to argue that he's rather pleased that he was born, Virginia Ironside has anticipated his argument: "Writing this will, I know, bring in an avalanche of letters...from severely disabled adults who are horrified that I'm proposing their lives should have been extinguished before they were even born. And once they're on the scene, of course what is there to do but love them and help them?" Of course, what indeed? It isn't their fault they were born. "But," she warns, "those who write optimistically about a disabled life are the lucky ones" - that's right, disabled people who believe they had every right to be born are just selfishly ignoring all the others who would rather be dead.

In any case, as a reader letter succinctly puts it: "a handicapped child handicaps the entire family". Damn right, they just drag everyone else down with them. Bring on the gas chambers. (Quoted reader is, I'm glad to say, now enjoying a box of Charbonnel et Walker champagne truffles for their profound opinion.)

Reading a little deeper, I think that Virginia is actually making an even more profound point; when she says that "it is only kind, fair and, importantly, truly loving not to give birth to a child who might spend its life in permanent pain and suffering", she is surely advocating a blanket stop to any childbirth whatever. After all, any child might spend its life in permanent pain and suffering - God knows, many of us feel that we do. We all know that man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live and is full of misery - and as Virginia says, "there is nothing about life that makes it worth living per se". I only wish that my parents had loved me enough to have me aborted.

Virginia Ironside is, as I said, expecting an "avalanche of letters" so if you can spare a moment email your thoughts to dilemmas@independent.co.uk because I wouldn't wish to begrudge her a little feeling of satisfaction at every narrow-minded conservative who disagrees with her. After all, she's probably still coming to terms with the fact that her parents didn't love her enough to put an end to her foetus' growth into a human being.

Well - a being, at any rate.

Yes, entirely. But...

I agree - it's most certainly an agonising decision and the whole issue is a very, very difficult one. Far be it from me to criticise any parent who chooses to have an abortion in that situation. My primary objection to Virginia's attitude is her simplification of the whole topic and her black and white statement of what a loving parent OUGHT to do. As you say, it's not an issue that can be easily dismissed either way.

I also think that her whole attitude to life is off; she may think that "there is nothing about life that makes it worth living per se" - I would say that EVERYTHING about life makes it living per se, and it's not up to us to say that somebody's life would or would not be worth living. Or at least, it's not up to Virginia Ironside.

Euthanasia's great though, can't wait til I can get it on the NHS.

That's not...

That's not euthanasia, that's suspended animation. Somebody will thaw you out several thousand years in the future and you'll be able to see how everything turns out. Shame you won't be able to pop back and tell us.

Actually...

Ironside wasn't merely implying that disabled people should never be born, she was stating outright that a loving parent would NEVER choose to give birth to somebody who would be "born at a dreadful disadvantage".

As I've already stated, I meant no criticism of the Mother in question and I have the deepest sympathy and respect for anybody who has been faced with that decision. I'm very much pro-choice. But knowing that a baby would be born "at a dreadful disadvantage" does not on its own justify an abortion (the broader situation and emotional response of the parents is course a different and much more complex matter). Hawking's motorneurone disease and the probable consequences of it would, with today's technology, be clear at a foetal stage. As his long and rich life proves, to make a decision to abort that foetus simply because the human it grew into was going to be at a dreadful disadvantage would have been wrong.

A decision to have an abortion based entirely on the likely disadvantages of a baby also takes an attitude of "survival of the fittest" into childbirth, where people are deemed unfit for life before they even get a chance at it. There's nothing sensationalist about pointing out that this would be a decision based on ideas of physical purity, which are oh so very unsensationalist when you're rationalising it in a clean white hospital.

Of course Virginia is entitled to her opinions, but writing for a major broadsheet comes with some responsibilities. As for my own opinion about abortion itself, I don't believe I have actually stated it, have I? My "cheap" comments (positively expensive next to some of what I've written on this blog - have you been keeping up with my sewage problems?) are merely directed at Ironside's article, which I find oversimplistic and, in the case of her attitude towards life itself, just plain wrong. I'm not even attempting to debate such a hot topic in the course of a single blog entry - and my point is, Virginia Ironside shouldn't be putting across her own views in the course of an agony aunt column.