In a message dated 09/12/1999 7:17:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Betty, he looks like someone who's not right in the head...  A bit
 eccentric, if you know what I mean...
  >>

Michael, I've been keeping up with this a little since I first heard about
it.  I don't suspect that the list would want to know all that I've read, but
if you or anyone might be interested, I'll be happy to send you the links I
have collected about this man and his philosophy.  I recently learned that
there is a group of students at Princeton who have openly opposed his
appointment, and are calling themselves the "Princeton Students Against
Infanticide."

I wouldn't be quite as disturbed if he had not become an ivy league
commodity.  It's the fact that he has garnered this much respect in academic
circles that concerns me.  If I understand correctly, he advocates promotion
of certain animals to the classification or status of persons, while at the
same time advocating the declassification of infants (all infants -- not just
those with disabilities) and people who are not self-aware.  He has
established the first 28 days of disabled child's life as the time period in
which parents should be allowed to give permission for the life to be
terminated.  This is not an advocacy for "mercy killing."  The idea is to
give the parents a chance at better happiness.  I haven't read anything that
suggests that he has concern for the child, or other people he suggests
should be "unpeopled."  Some may consider this to be in the same camp with
euthanasia, but it's a different philosophy.  Whether we support the idea of
euthanasia or not, the general consensus seems to be that -- one side or the
other -- we are trying to think in the best interest of the people who would
be at the business end of the needle, or other instrument that would end
their life.  Utilitarian bioethics is born of the interest in that which is
most useful for society.

If you would like more information, let me know.

Betty