I will let you all read the below posts in their original state so that
mine does not seem to be retorting to either- I actually had planned to
responde to three or four previous posts, just waited tilnow to do so.
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 Canada, as you
probably all know we have had some very high profile murders of disabled
children and some high profile assisted suicide cases. SOME people, ( not
even related to the Singer debate) have tried to tie these two together
by saying- look adult disabled people want to die, so the parents or
murderers were just "helping" their children. I think this false logic is
what leads to people connecting the killing of disabled children to
abortion. I see them as completely separate.
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. I think
the debate is useful but the issue is far more complex. Carol Gill was at
the same conference as me about genetics and disability where genetic
counsellors met with disability rights advocates and academics. The
discussions DID NOT resolve the issues. There is still no ONE answer. The
parent (mother) and the doctors involved are rarely well informed about
ANY disability. Speaking to a disability advocate may in fact turn the
tables and make the parent MORE willing to let a child die, with-hold
treatment etc, it is not a guarantee- HOWEVER, being uninformed, or
being informed only of the potentially negative ( i emphasize potential
because research and science have failed to have any REAL VALIDITY in
predicting status or quality of life based on babies disabilities) impact
of having a disability. I hope that this list serve is a place were we
wrestle linguistically and cerebrally with the issues raised by valuing
and devaluing disability, but that we also do not make conceptual leaps
from issues choice to issues of murder. Unfortunately, I am aware that
MANY people to make these leaps, I am just hoping we can resist. Tanis
Tanis is moving in August please stay tuned for new address and phone
number. Visit http://members.xoom.com/doetanis1/newhome.html for some
links. Pls send attachments to [log in to unmask] not to this email thanks.
On Fri, 1 Oct 1999, Ron Amundson wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Judy Singer <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 1999 2:05 PM
> Subject: What does the Let's-Silence--Singer camp want?
>
>
> > I'm getting confused, and I'd like to hear from members of the the
> > Silence-Singer camp how they see a Womman's Right to Choose.
>
> Judy --
>
> I think if you _really_ would like to hear about these things, you would
> make the request in a less insulting manner. No "camp" has tried to "Silence
> Singer". That's your own distortion. Singer's Defenders (SDs) very
> frequently complain that Singer's Critics (SCs) have not read Singer's work.
> But SDs frequently don't bother to read the words of SCs either. The
> Princeton protest was about Singer's appointment to a prestigious post, not
> about his freedom to speak and write.
>
> > Now Singer has said that he thinks that a woman who knows she has a
> > child with a disability and wants to abort it - or even kill it - should
> > first talk to disability advocates and representatives of the particular
> > disability before making her decision.
> > What more can you want???
>
> First, I keep hearing about Singer changing his views, but I haven't
> actually seen any references. Do you have one? (I'm not denying that they
> exist, I just see more chat about it than citation.)
>
> Second, you report that Singer now thinks that a woman should consult with
> disability advocate _before killing it her disabled child_ (!!!!) and then
> you ask "what more can you want???"
>
> What an odd question! I can want her not to kill it, of course, and I can
> want such killing to be illegal. That's easy. Did you really think that
> people opposed to the infanticide of disabled children would be satisfied if
> they were just _consulted_ before the killing?
>
> > 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?
>
> Again with the sarcasm. As has also frequently been stated, Not Dead Yet
> (the group in the front of the Princeton protest) takes no position on
> abortion. Some members are pro-life and some members are pro-choice. Singer
> and some conservative pro-lifers have argued that abortion is tantamout to
> infanticide and so people who are pro-choice on abortion should be
> pro-choice on infanticide too. The pro-choice NDY members obviously
> disagree. You seem to side with Singer and those pro-lifers on that
> question. Do you really agree with them that there is no significant
> difference between abortion and infanticide?
>
> > 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.
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. See above.
>
> > Judy Singer
>
>
> Ron
>
> --
> Ron Amundson
> University of Hawaii at Hilo
> Hilo, HI 96720
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|