You approach a paraplegic friend hoping to convince them to join the disbled rights movement. You start out by asking them whether they would prefer a life without their disability or whether there is less happiness in her life with the disability than without. What would your friend be likely to reply?
Next you go to a second disabled person,one who is disabled because her mother took thalidomide. This person is suing the manufacturer of thalidomide for 8 million dollars for damages etc. You ask her if she prefers her life with stumps for arms to a normal life. Isn;t she likely to reply, assuming she does not become too angry to reply: Of course I prefer a life with functioning arms and I am suing because the thalidomide manufacturers are responsible for the way I am. Shouldn't you respond. But you are valuing your disabled versus an alternvative normal status and assigning superior value to the normal status.. You are worse than SInger. You actually are suggesting some monetary measure, that eight milllion dollars is the difference in value between you being disabled and not. She might very reply that no amount of money can compensate for her disability.
.
Cheers, Ken Hanly Marta Russell wrote:
> OK here it is and really, this will be my last post. Singer does assign value to the
> disabled/nondisabled status of the infant.
> This is a quote from Singer at a Princeton event where he debated Adrienne Asch, a
> bioethicist who is blind:
>
> "If there is one point with which I and the anti-abortion forces can agree,
> it is that birth does not really mark a sudden change in the nature or
> status of the neonate (of the fetus or newborn). On the contrary, there is
> basically a continuation through that point. And so, I think that indeed
> it's a reasonable view to take both during pregnancy and with the immediate
> newborn that the life has barely begun if it's beginning in a very clouded
> way (with prospects that are clouded), then it's reasonable to say no,
> better not to go on with this- better to consider starting again.
>
> Now is that an unreasonable prejudice or bias against having a disability?
> Let me say that I think parents ought to be well advised about the nature of
> the future of their child. And I agree (and I think I have perhaps learned
> from the disability advocacy movement) that doctors are not always
> well-informed about this and it's a good idea to bring in organizations or
> people from organizations concerned with a particular disability of a child
> if parents are in any doubt and get some advice and information from them.
> But I don't think I am therefore required to deny the view that other things
> being equal, it's better not to have a disability. "
>