Fragments From Floyd

Thank-YOU for sharing that. We all have abilities and disabilities(although hidden and not for public view). I think everyone can make a difference if they try... It just may NOT be your difference.

Fred,
I have not read Peter Singer's thoughts on disabilities so I hesitate to weigh in on this, but I know his earlier writings, especially those about animals and would never, based on those and some later writings, call him shallow or bigoted.

On the contrary, he seems, to me at least, to be one of the least shallow men I've read and bigoted I can't imagine.

But, I shall have to explore the material which seems to have upset you. What do you recommend?

Isn't this exactly what partial-birth abortion addresses? The right of a woman to terminate a defective fetus?

I've supported friends while a newborn went through medical hell only to die at eight months and another who futilely sat by an incubator for 68 days because the hospital suits denied their requests to withdraw support...to cover their asses legally, not out of concern for the rights or suffering of the children concerned.

I was raised with a family that had two disabled children out of five siblings and we never thought about the disablities as a "handicap" but just a fact of life and a practical problem we had to solve to include them. It was no big deal.

So I am torn.

We need to have this debate divorced from the hot button issue of abortion rights and polarizing rhetoric. Fat chance.

This particular argument has been around quite a while. It's called eugenics, or is some variation of it. Hitler was particularly interested in the idea, which floated around Nietzchian circles for some time. The idea doesn't "upset" ME, though I'm opposed to it. Can anyone proposing such an idea imagine WHO would be making the decisions? The parents? I doubt it. Parents who want to make decisions like this one already basically have it in their power-- take the kid out of the hospital and go to some place where the overarching arm of the government doesn't reach. We notice that few parents seem to be flocking to this option. So who?

The other problem with the argument is the assumption that the pain associated with having a sick child is something that can and should be avoided. I had a child so sick he almost died when he was born, and who has turned out to be a little autistic (i.e. weird but functioning). I don't think it's "sad" or "unhappy" at all, and the ordeal when Raf was born, while excruciating at the time, taught me more about myself, my husband and Life than I'd have ever learned. It was deep on so many levels that I can't begin to describe them.

The idea of wanting to maximize happiness and avoid unpleasantness and pain is a peculiar kind of deadness, I think. Feeling sorry for the chronically ill and handicapped is part of that deadness. A handicapped person experiences her life as Life, Reality, What Is (or she does if she's conscious and mentally healthy.) People who want to deprive her of that life in the odd, mistaken notion that somebody will be "happier" as a result-- I wouldn't call them bigoted though shallow does have a certain ring of truth to it. Certainly, someone like that lacks a sense of the deeper quality of life that can't be distracted by mere happiness.

I agree with travelertrish. I've worked with people with disabilities all my working life (25 years). I'm now working with a group of people with spinal cord injuries, some paralympic athletes - they are truly the most awesome people and I couldn't imagine a society without them. I have also worked with children with severe profound intellectual and physical disability. The majority of parents while tired and overworked could not imagine life without their children. Rather, they have enriched their lives. For those parents who are struggling however, we, as a society, have a responsibilty to provide what support systems we can in order to make their lives as caregivers easier and to enhance the quality of life of the person with the disability.
To judge a person's life as worthless simply because they have a disability is a dangerous attitude.

I agree with the earlier comment that it is difficult to effectively argue this hypothesis of "right to kill" without becoming entangled in pro-life versus abortion issues.

As far as the notion that having the choice to exterminate defective (or what is being considered defective) fetuses is concerned, I dare say that the idea is one I find apalling. The basis of the argument I find most disturbing is not so much the issued of the matter of choice; it is the assumption that a "defective" child automatically deteriorates from societal and/or familial "happiness".

I certainly hope Peter Singer doesn't similarly conduct a study in which all red-haired children are more likely to be aggressive and/or stubborn, thereby making them expendable as well. Having a stubborn child can certainly be trying, thereby detracting from our overall happiness. Better, perhaps, to eliminate them?

Similarly, what about children born with genius IQ's? It is so very difficult to adequately stimulate their intellect and provide a nurturing environment. Perhaps he would hypothesize that it would be preferable to exterminate them so as to not burden society. If they will never reach their full potential, then perhaps they should be eliminated before their lives become wasted?

I realize these examples are extremes of his original hypothethis regarding the "right to kill a defective child". Or are they? Given funding and research, each could most likely be adequately supported with scientific research, and a solid argument might be presented.

On all counts, I disagree. I respect his right to pose the question, and even respect his right to create what he would consider reasonable arguments to support his hypothesis. I also respect my right to disagree with his assumption that exterminating "disabled" persons enhances our level of happiness and makes room for non-disabled specimens.

I strongly disagree. They have much to teach us, if we are willing to learn. There are no mistakes in God's universe. Only humans who are searching for answers, or searching for ways to pose new questions. Eliminate "deformities", and eventually we all become extinct. Which leaves no one to exterminate.

There is another point of view. I had an uncle who was quite deformed, mentally retarded, lacking speech, required to hold his eyes open with his fingers if he wished to look any way other than down. He made a large contribution to my life and I loved him. However, had Grandmother had an option in those days, I would support her right to take it. Her choice, not mine, would matter. It would have been up to her to decide whether she could cope with the stress of raising such a child (the younger of her two children). The other view point is that, had she not had my uncle, she might have wanted to have another--and I can imagine loving that uncle or aunt just as fiercely, I can imagine that uncle or aunt having contributed just as much (or more, or less) to my life. I can look at the "lost opportunity" of having experienced another life that was deprived of being by Grandmother's recognition that she dared not have a third child because she would be unable to cope with the additional responsibility. She and Grandfather were celebate for the rest of their lives together (as it happened, Grandfather died shortly thereafter, so the entire responsibility rested with Grandmother until my uncle died at the age of 56.)

I certainly agree with your point about the "choice" perhaps being the central issue being presented here.

Choice becomes entangled with the abortion issue, yet again. Abortion and choice are not synonymous, yet they are inextricably linked.

My issue is with hypothesis that "defected" persons detract from our overall happiness, versus the richness that they can also bring into our lives. I think your post (Cop Car) illustrated both points of interest quite well.