JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:
> Marta
> > << We've heard this "right of society" line before, it has been used to
> > sterilize and exterminate disabled people, gays, deaf, gypsies, blacks,
> > alcoholics, Jews, any social "deviant."
> > >>
> >
> > JKS: It's offensive and ignorant to accuse Singer of being a Nazi.
> >
>
> Marta: I was thinking broader than Nazis. In the U.S. members of the the
> criminal/incarcerated population were regularly sterilized by physicians and
> ironically the inventor of the iron lung (Alex Carol?) advocated for
> euthanasia of disabled adults. . . .
> JKS: But you have not a shred of evidence that Singer advocates or defends
> any of
> these policies, which of course he doesn't, or that he's commited to them
> despite himself, because he isn't. You are lucky you are writing in America,
> where the comstitutional protections against libel are strong, and not Britain,
> where any statement which is defamatory and false is actionable--also that
> Singer has a thick skin.
What do you mean by that last sentence, is Singer reading our posts? You left off the conclusion of my paragraph which is the heart of what I was attempting to convey:
"The Tuskegee experiments on "subhuman" blacks and the radiation experiments on mental patients and disabled children happened here. In addition, other health care officials in this country called for eliminating the unfit in the name of weighing society over the individual. Science and medicine have been infiltrated with these positions for decades and still are."
Ethicists have debated the issue of eugenics and euthanasia, i.e., ridding the world of whatever group of people they define "unfit" or "not fully human." Those definitions have changed according to the dominant values of a culture. Singer advocates for the right of parents (and society) to kill disabled babies under one month old under HIS rationale, they are not fully human. In the U.S. personhood is granted upon birth. In many people's book (mine included) killing a baby is killing a human being. Singer falls within the spectrum of professionals ( a philosopher/ethicist) who support euthanasia... the baby would have to be euthanized in order to kill it - whatever his reason for justifying the act.
The social Darwinists advocated for euthanizing disabled babies. They developed their reasons, physicians and scientists were key in obtaining public support for the social engineering that was to follow. The first official victim of the Nazi euthanasia program was a disabled infant named Baby Knauer. From there it spread to the killing of over 5,000 disabled children and over 275,000 disabled adults. Do you think that people in this death culture we now have are immune from doing the same thing? I certainly don't. If anything we may have become more desensitized to violence and killing than people living in the 30s. To give just one example amongst many, black children are killed here in Los Angeles almost every day and it doesn't make the newspapers - it is not "news" anymore. The more we push the boundries the greater the danger. Life becomes more expendable, certain groups (depending on the degree of their social power) more disposable than others.
Frankly I think Singer's may be a self-centered rationalization. Regardless of his philosophical constructions, socially sanctioning his views would mean that the parent would have the "right" to make the decision to kill or not to kill. Singer probably would not want to have a disabled infant therefore he uses his training in philosophy to rationalize killing them. But we disabled adults feel very differently about our lives than that. I shudder to think that Singer's views have convinced anyone to kill their disabled baby. If the baby is not wanted by the parents, why can it not be put up for adoption rather than killed? Why is killing the baby so important?
Marta