Ken Hanly wrote:
>
Where on earth do you get the idea that
> Singer ever held that non-persons do not feel pain?
I would have to go dig deep for that one. I cannot remember. I will
accept your explanation of his position on pain.
>
> Ken: What makes you think he no longer considers disability discrimination?
> He does.
Singer:
>
> It doesn't make any difference to the inherent right to life of the being,
> no. But it does make a difference in that if the child is born with a
> disability that would not make its life miserable, but the parents can't pay
> for the extra care, they could put the child up for adoption. If the
> disability is a mild one, that's what I think they should do. If the
> condition is detected during pregnancy, the woman can't give up the child
> unless she goes through with the whole thing until birth, which is asking a
> lot more than simply saying, "I don't think you can rear this child; here's
> another couple that could."
He is still using a quality of life judgement for which he is ill
equipt to make. A "mild" disability. What is that? And he omits
consideration of social services in the home which could cover the
lack of parental ability to pay.
>
> For Singer, life is not something to which all beings have an equal right.
I understand that -- his arrogance is just preposterous.
Marta
> > 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.
>
> KEN: To speak of biases is not to make a moral or value judgment?
Bias, as I use it, is an inclination which inhibits impartiality.
>To speak
> of "normal" without quotes is not to make a value or moral judgment?
The first "normal" had quotations and I grant to you that the second use of it was not what I intended. I am writing too quickly and not double checking what i wrote.
>Anyway do you not take a position on the
> right of a woman to abortion on demand? That is really what I was wondering
> about?
I have already stated *repeatedly* that I support a woman's right to choose. If you go back and read all the posts, I have never stated that I am against a woman's right to choose. That is NOT the issue here.
> I agree that "disability" is in many respects a social creation but it is
> based upon some biological facts surely.
So is gender, so is race but the more important matter are the social relations involved.
I also wonder if non-capitalist
> societies are any better than capitalist societies in creating a "problem of
> disability"?
Yes, most scholars who have looked into this say unequivocally that life prospects for disabled persons diminished with the onset of capitalism. See Victor Finkelstein, Michael Oliver, Brendan Gleeson, Colin Barnes, and Lennard Davis on this. Probably no one will bother to do this. I AM sorry that I do not have a scanner to display some of that work here.
Did you read the piece that Jean Stewart and I wrote for Monthly Review? It is at http://www.monthlyreview.org/0701russell.htm
Were attitudes in the former USSR any more enlightened.
Nope. But we have to consider that USSR is a productivist society -
I doubt
> Sparta regarded the disabled as normal, and Plato was ruthless in his
> treatment of the disabled infant or even sick adult.
Disabled persons have been targets in these instances but not all societies have excluded disabled persons. I do not believe that the root cause of exclusion is "natural" or the outcome of innate prejudice. That means something can be done about it.
If you want to know more, the authors I cited above are well worth reading. Some very good articles are published in the British publication "Disability & Society."
One book that presents an overview of current thought is "Exploring Disability: A sociological Introduction" by colin Barnes, Geof Mercer and Tom Shakespeare.
best, Marta