Thomas Seay wrote:
>
> I take Singer's side in this instance.
I don't at all agree with Singer.
>Namely, people born
>with even severe impairments can lead rich lives.
>One need only think of Helen Keller. And I remember
>that wonderful French/Belgian film (can't remember the
>name of it right now)where the overworked apollonian
>banker learns so much from his dionsyian friend with
>down syndrome. Of course, that was only a movie but
>I am sure that such things happen in real life also.
Well that is part of the problem here I would say. Most of the people I know are deaf, blind, mobility or otherwise impaired and the so called nondisabled are in the minority. Most I know do not think like you and most do not think we need "special" people, super achievers to know that our lives are as valuable to us as yours is to you!
> In class society, technology will be often used for
> oppression and war. Does that mean we should give up
> developing technology? I dont think so. In a society
> where women are looked upon as second-class citizens
> for whom you will have to pay a dowry, ultrasound will
> be used to determine whether to abort or not..Again
> should we do away with the science or struggle against
> patriarchy and class society which is the real
> etiology of the problem?
If you understood Beeson, how can you put this comment together the way you have? She is arguing that society is the reason for the current use of selective abortion. She does not think society is a positive influence on people's decision making when it comes to abortion. I go further. I say that capitalism and productivism lie at at the root of ableism (disability oppression). You are not struggling against my oppression by supporting Peter Singer. He's ready to give everyone the right to kill us after birth too.
Marta