Ken Hanly wrote:
>
> He no longer holds the 28 day position. From a recent interview:
>
> Most proponents of the right to die would agree with your ideas about
> euthanasia. But you lose them when you suggest that it's OK to kill a baby
> before it's 28 days old, because until that time, it is not self-aware and
> "doesn't have the same right to life as others."
>
singer:
> I wrote that in 1995. I have changed my position. Now I believe you should
> look at every individual case.
Ken:
> By the way Singer's position now is that a disabled newborn should not
> be killed if someone is willing to adopt it.
Well what two good reasons for not taking bioethicists seriously. They take a position with no foundation other than their own belief system, the going gets tough (disabled persons pressed him hard on this one) and they modify their position.
>
> What would not be a perfectly good reason for an abortion?
>
Singer:
> There's a difference between early and late abortions. If you have a late
> abortion, where the fetus might feel pain, then I think you should have a
> good reason. Because then you're inflicting pain. As you go through the
> third trimester, you need to have more serious reasons to end a pregnancy.
> For instance, I would not support ending a pregnancy only because you want a
> boy and you're going to get a girl, because it would reinforce sex
> discrimination. But if you already have two boys and you want a girl, that
> could be enough reason for abortion.
He considers sex discrimination but not disability discrimination. Well of course, women would be in an uproar. Disabled people are in an uproar and believe me he has felt the pinch.
Do "nonpersons" like fetuses feel pain? I thought it was part of the lexicon that they do not. As I recall, Singer's previous argument was that "nonpersons," including infant,s do not feel pain and that makes it OK to kill them.
You asked:
> P.S. I haven't been following this discussion too closely. Which of the
> following represents your position? 1) Although it is immoral to abort a
> fetus that is likely to be moderately disabled a woman should have the right
> to such an abortion. 2) Such an abortion is immoral and ought to be
> prohibited by law.
Neither. I am not making a moral judgement at all. At the risk of over simplifying my position, I am arguing that capitalist production creates "disablement." Physical impairments are fundamentally socialized as disability; a state of socio-spatial exclusion from the mainstreams of social, economic and cultural life. Disability is not a problem of individual impaired bodies. It is a historical social creation. There are biases that have developed as a result -- one of them being the bias against having a disabled child and these are perpetuated by institutions that reproduce the status quo - one which thrives on producing the most exploitable bodies. Instead of capitulating to this social reality by eliminating "imperfect" bodies (this is not progress), I am calling for the rearrangment of economic and social realities so that disabled persons are not viewed as "abnormal" -- and only acceptable if they can be made "normal" i.e., cured. Disability must come to be regarded as a normal part of living. We reject the medicalized perspective of disability, through which we are regarded as flawed human beings who will never be completely socially or economically acceptable unless we are cured.
best, Marta