this peter singer dude sounds like hitler reincarnated...he is an idiot who
should not be taken seriously, even if it is to just get angry over such pig
wallow

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Hudson [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 11:41 AM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Heres More on Peter Singer
>
> "Stephen N. Drake" wrote:
>
> > FACT SHEET ON PETER SINGER
> >
> > Personhood
> >
> > According to Singer, to be ethical, we must treat all "persons"
> according
> > to moral guidelines.  But not all humans are "persons."  Singer claims
> > that in order to be "persons" and to deserve moral consideration, beings
> > must be self-aware, and capable of perceiving themselves as individuals
> > through time.
> >
> > Singer claims that no newborn infants are "persons."  He claims that
> some
> > people with life-long cognitive disabilities never become "persons" at
> > any time throughout their lives.  And he claims that some people who
> > acquire cognitive disabilities through injury, Alzheimer's Disease, or
> > other means cease to be "persons."
> >
> > Singer says that killing a "non-person," even if it is human, does not
> > carry the same moral weight as killing a "person."
> >
> > Infanticide
> >
> > It may be all right, according to Singer, to kill infants.  Because they
> > are not "persons," they have no interest in staying alive, and it is
> > only superstition that makes us think that killing them is intrinsically
> > wrong.
> >
> > Singer is quick to note that it is still wrong to kill most infants, for
> > other reasons.  The killing of an infant would, in most cases, make the
> > parents unhappy.  Second, in the cases where the parents do not want the
> > infant, there are other couples and individuals who would like to adopt
> > the child, so the child should be kept alive and put up for adoption.
> >
> > But infants with known disabilities, and especially cognitive
> > disabilities, he says, do not bring the same amount of happiness into
> the
> > lives of their parents.  Additionally, the very fact that someone is
> > disabled means that he or she will have an unhappier life than other
> > people.  And therefore the reasons not to kill non-disabled infants do
> not
> > apply to disabled infants.
> >
> > Singer argues that it should be legal for parents to decide to have
> their
> > disabled infants killed up to 28 days after birth.  This way, he says,
> > parents could have non-disabled replacements.  In addition, the infants
> > would provide a source of organs for transplantation to other infants
> who
> > could grow up to be non-disabled.
> >
> > Euthanasia
> >
> > It may be all right, according to Singer, to kill people whose doctors
> > claim they are severely cognitively disabled.  Although Singer doesn't
> > give a list, we know that people to whom labels like "mentally
> retarded,"
> > "demented," "persistent vegetative state," and "severely brain-damaged"
> > are applied are likely to have that judgment applied to them.
> >
> > Singer claims that such people are not "persons," and therefore can not
> > be said to have an interest in staying alive.  Unless the benefit to the
> > people who love these "non-persons" outweighs the emotional and
> financial
> > burden to individuals and society of keeping them alive, they can safely
> > and deliberately be killed.
> >
> > The euthanasia of people whose minds are judged inadequate would be a
> way
> > to save money.  It would be a way to allow families to "move on."  And
> it
> > would provide a source of organs for transplantation to people whose
> minds
> > have been judged acceptable.  According to Singer, very often people
> with
> > cognitive disabilities should be killed.
> >
> > Academic Dishonesty
> >
> > In building his case, Singer makes many assertions that he does not
> > support, because they can not be supported.
> >
> > Singer writes as if impairment itself guarantees that people with
> > disabilities will have fewer opportunities in life.  He ignores the fact
> > that many of the barriers people with disabilities face every day are
> > created and sustained by the very society he claims should be allowed to
> > kill them.
> >
> > He leads readers to believe that if some medical professionals judge the
> > lives of people with disabilities as not worth living, that is
> indicative
> > of how people with disabilities judge their own lives.  In fact, study
> > after study has shown that medical "experts" routinely underestimate the
> > quality of life reported by people with disabilities.
> >
> > But Singer does not include people with disabilities in the discussion
> of
> > the quality of their lives.  He assumes that non-disabled academics and
> > professionals are better qualified to discuss what it is like to have a
> > disability than disabled people themselves.
> >
> > Singer suggests that decisions about who is a "person" can be made
> > objectively and with little doubt, by doctors.  In fact, doctors
> > routinely underestimate the capacity of people who are judged to be
> > mentally disabled.
> >
> > In short, a lot of Singer's "logic" is smoke and mirrors.  It has no
> more
> > basis in fact than the eugenic models of racial superiority and
> > inferiority that were widely held and respected in the first decades of
> > this century.
> >
> > Demands for Injustice
> >
> > Singer is not simply arguing academic theories.  He is urging that
> policy
> > decisions be made on the basis of his ideas.  His demands for "academic
> > freedom" are merely attempts to keep the affected people out of the
> > discussion.
> >
> > If Singer's approach were to be put into law, as he wants, a new class
> of
> > non-citizens would be created.  A group of people with disabilities
> would
> > be forced to prove that they were "persons" before even being granted
> the
> > most basic right, the right not to be killed at society's convenience.
> >
> > When people assume mental capacity, they tend to find mental capacity.
> > When people assume mental incapacity, they tend to find mental
> incapacity.
> > To demand that people assumed to be incapable pass a higher test than
> > those assumed to be capable merely to stay alive is simply unjust.
> >
> > Singer claims to be speaking for the vast majority of non-disabled
> > people. He claims he is only saying what everyone else thinks.  We in
> the
> > disability community call for a clear statement on the part of people
> > without disabilities that we are entitled to the equal protection of the
> > law.