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.