i think learning at the college leval is up just what the professor likes and
what you to learn. like i was in a class about different ethnic groups and the
professor was discreamanating against me. i talk to other disabled students
and they had the same problem. the thing that gets me is how could she teach
a class for ethnis tolerinch when she that way against disabled people. i had
an art teacher say i was and never will be an artist, because she didn't like
my style. plus she just past me so she would get in trouble.
.02
dan
Aaron Thompson wrote:
> bobby...that is even scarier...someone like him teaching?
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bobby Greer [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 9:23 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Heres More on Peter Singer
> >
> > Aaron,
> >
> > Singer has a very prestigious appointment to Princeton to teach
> > bioethics! As a professor, myself, academic freedom to speak, even if it
> > is
> > "pig wallow" is a very prized freedom. I think people are up in arms
> > because Princeton appointed him. From my own personal perspective, with
> > health reform and the insurance companies looking for ways to cut costs,
> > it
> > is dangerous that Singer has such a venue.
> >
> > Bobby G, Greer
> >
> >
> > >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.
|
