Ok as Tani drags me into this I think I want to clarify some points
On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Tanis M. Doe wrote:
> In Canada the DisAbled Women's Movement has been consistent in upholding a
> woman's right to choose- to continue or abort a pregnancy. That is not,
> nor should it be related to the killing of babies.
In Singer's mind the philosophy is everything which is a non person can be
killed. In the moment their is a difference between abortion and
infanticide purely for the reason that as soon as you are born you are
viewed as a person. Now starting from the assumption of Singer who
deserves to be a person indeed the boundary between abortion and
infanticide is falling apart. Also Singer says very clearly being a human
being does not start at birth but after cells can't devide into different
entities anymore. So if you want to uphold the boundary between
infanticide and abortion you have to deal with the arguments of the
personhood debate.
Just as a side comment (as the stuff writen by Tanis might leave the
impression that Dick Barb and I are not for choice. I apologize if I
misread you Tanis.). I find the comment
that
DAWN is upholding women's right to choose much to simplistic as choice
doesn't exist in the moment. Choice is the ability to choose between two
equally valid options. Obviously it's not the same whether to have a
disabled child or a non disabled child. I and many women
(e.g. Abby Lippman)question the notion that choice is solely based on
the person to say yes or no. It is based on the enviroment these women are
sitting in. I had and still have long debates with
people that there should not be a difference
between sex selection and disability selection something which was put
forward by the last Canadian Biotech billand by the Royal Commission on
NRT and which might appear again in the new Canadian Biotech Bill and
something which is the law
in Pennsylvania (funny that the Pennsylvania law which is Anti Choice was
not torn down by women groups who are in favour of choice).
This relates also to Judy's comment (Or should anyone who wants to have
an abortion first have to do pre-natal testing so that she can only
abort if the foetus is normal?) THe non disabled are looking for a special
protection status not the disabled.
> However, Gregor Dick (sobsey) and Barb (waxman) and I have had heated
> debates about the "cost" of autonomy and independent, is it worth having
> the right to kill oneself if it means the abuse of that right in the form
> of murdering disabled people or pushing people to want to die.
Now here are we at the ass. suicide debate. it sounds as if we are
against autonomy... That is not true. What Dick Barbara (I presume) and I
are saying that the right to die in a dignified way debate is not about
autonomy its not about the right to kill oneself in essence it's about
"after birth eugenics".
If
autonomy and independence and self determination would be indeed the
focuss of right to die than you would not just see disabled/people with an
illness targeted to allow THEM an access to a dignified death. Many other
people have no access to a dignified death but they are not part of that
push.
The below is from Judy
> > > Democracy: you let people speak without muzzling and censorship, give
> > > them the options, engage in the struggle to make sure they're fair, but
> > > let the individual choose.
In order to do so you have also to level the playing field meaning that
both sides have equal options and effectivness to distribute their
thoughts. THat is not the case
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|