dan...unfortunately, there are those people in every profession...tis a
shame that sometimes we have to just turn the other cheek, strive to do the
best that we can, and learn what we can in spite of narrow minded
individuals who, themselves, determine what is correct and what is
not...just keep pluggin'...your time comes
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lawrence keplinger [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 6:37 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Heres More on Peter Singer
>
> 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.
|
