The word “discrimination” may very well be the most confusing word in the English language. In practice, everyone is in favor of it, everyone is against it, and virtually no one understands it. Its basic meaning is the act of making or recognizing differences. For example, discrimination between fact and theory is sometimes difficult: a person is told to be more discriminating in his choice of friends. Education is not possible if the student is incapable of an act of discrimination in which he distinguishes truth from falsehood, right from wrong, and fact from fiction. Then there is unjust discrimination that presupposes discrimination, but adds the vice of giving preferential treatment to one group while treating the other group unjustly. For example, allowing men to enroll in medical school while denying the same privilege to women.
It is not likely that any progress can be made concerning the issue of discrimination unless there is clarification of what the word means and how it is used. In other words, we must discriminate between the positive and the negative implications of the term “discrimination”.
The Abortion Act in 1967, in the United Kingdom, made provision for allowing abortion up to 24 weeks gestation, but up to 40 weeks on the grounds of disability (Section 1 (1) (d). A special Commission was set up specifically to review the provision that allows abortion on the grounds of disability and consider whether the disabled fetus might be a victim of discrimination. The Final Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry into Abortion on the Grounds of Disability was presented on the 17th of July 2013. The 54-page Report is lengthy and comprehensive, containing 349 footnotes and the written and oral testimonies of 299 contributors.
The Report makes the following recommendation: “Parliament should consider at the very least the two main options removing those elements which a majority of witnesses believe are discriminatory – that is either reducing the upper time limit for abortions on the grounds of disability from birth to make it equal to the upper limit for able bodied babies or repealing Section 1(1) (d) altogether.” At the same time, the majority of medical professionals strongly argued that the law is right for a small number of difficult cases where parents face a late discovery of their child’s [sic] disability.
Interestingly, the Report employs the expression “able bodied babies,” thereby according them more status than is accorded by the term “fetus”. Coincidentally, the Report stated that, according to some people, “Since the fetus has no legal status until birth there is no discrimination under the law per se.” It was also mentioned that even if the time limit for abortion were equal, aborting for reasons of disability would still be discriminatory. The Report noted that although 90% of babies detected as having Down’s syndrome are aborted, surveys show that nearly 99% of people with Down’s syndrome are happy while, “Overwhelmingly, parents and siblings reported loving, and having pride in, their family member with Down’s syndrome”. The Report also noted the inconsistencies that society shows toward the disabled given the positive attitude shown toward the Paralympics and the passage of the Equality Act of 2010. Nonetheless, as the Report went on to state, “The parents, almost without exception, felt hugely guilty for allowing their disabled children to be born, not because they didn’t love them and accept them for who they were but for society’s attitude to disability and the negative views surrounding it.”
What the Report did not discuss, however, was whether abortion itself is an act of unjust discrimination against the unborn child on the basis of its place of residence, age, size, inability to speak in its defense, or for some other reason. It is thus possible to remove one level of discrimination (reducing the 40-week limit to 24 weeks) and yet retain a more virulent form of discrimination that ends the child’s life. In addition, if Parliament allows both able-bodied babies as well as disabled babies to be aborted up until birth, one level of discrimination is removed, but no one stands to benefit from it. In fact, the way is opened up for more babies to be aborted. In this case, the removal of one level of discrimination does not remove the element of injustice. Here we once again encounter the reigning confusion over the word “discrimination”.
“Like” Truth and Charity Forum on Facebook!
When the notion of discrimination is politicized, one form of discrimination can be withdrawn without justice being served. Unless the basic and underlying forms of discrimination are addressed, the real issue of discrimination is ignored. Allowing abortion up until birth for both able and disabled unborn children removes one level of discrimination but widens the range of injustice.
The Report, then, reflects the pandemic confusion in today’s society (specifically in the UK) concerning the relationship between discrimination and justice. Not all forms of discrimination are unjust. We should be primarily concerned, not with discrimination, but with injustice. Because the Report gave priority to discrimination rather than to justice, it reflected widespread confusion without offering a sound solution.
Dr. Donald DeMarco is a Senior Fellow of Human Life International. Doctor DeMarco is a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and he is Professor Emeritus at St. Jerome’s University in Waterloo, Ontario and an adjunct professor at Holy Apostles College & Seminary in Cromwell, CT.
He is the author of 22 books, including; Architects of the Culture of Death, The Many Faces of Virtue, The Heart of Virtue, and New Perspectives on Contraception. He has authored several hundred articles in scholarly journals and in anthologies, and articles and essays appearing in other journals and magazines and in newspapers; and innumerable book reviews in a variety of publications.
His education includes: B.S. Stonehill College, North Easton, MA 1959 (General Science); A.B. Stonehill College, 1961 (Philosophy); Gregorian University, Rome, Italy, 1961-2 (Theology); M.A. St. John’s University, Jamaica, NY, 1965 (Philosophy); and Ph.D. At. John’s Univ., 1969 (Philosophy). His Master’s dissertation was “The Basic Concept in Hegel’s Dialectical Method” and his Doctor’s dissertation was “The Nature of the Relationship between the Mathematical and the Beautiful in Music”.
He is married to Mary Arendt DeMarco and they have five children.
