While I find the concept of selective infanticide reprehensible, I also can't help wondering... What happens to severely disabled children who are born to parents who resent them, or parents who are unwilling to provide the proper care for them?

they're abused and neglected. the abuse rate for special needs children is high and it saddens me.

I had a conversation with a friend a few weeks along these same lines. I've wanted to have a child for as long as I can remember and I've always planned on doing it by myself if it looked like I wasn't going to have a partner to help me, but the older I get the more I worry about doing it alone. I've chosen a career path that will never be lucrative and it would be tough as a single parent with a healthy child. I can't imagine what it would be like with a special needs child. I grew up knowing how a resentful parent can affect a life. I would never want to make another person feel that.

and so I've reached a point where I think that maybe it's best to not try to have a child so that I never have to make such a tough decision. and this thought hurts very much.

Nice one, Mike. Has she written any recommendable books? In fact, the only negative comment I have: this was too long an article to read on a CRT...;-)

But you probably want commentary more germain to the subject, eh? Here goes:

I think she's absolutely correct to engage and be civil with Singer. It seems to be consistent with her ethics and, as the buddhists know, it's good tactics. Practicing compassion and understanding works. Her analysis of why Singer's philosophy is flawed also feels right to me. Singer clearly has a mind - I wouldn't be at all surprised if Harriet Johnson's manner is undeniable to him and it ultimately sways him to change his tune. At least that would make for a wonderful academic fairy tale. Thanks again for the link-ie.

So, Patricia, in your analysis is the risk of neglect and abuse by a resentful parent enough justification to terminate a pregnancy? I'm not trying to corner you or judge. Just curious.

Also, keep in mind that I'm extremely pro-choice so this is a really odd position for me. Pro-choice, animal rights activist, atheist crip. A philosophical nightmare, this one.

I can't help but interject a little bit.

One factoid that Ms. Johnson doesn't bring up is that Singer advocates killing disabled infants up to 28 days after their birth.

Continue, please. I'll have a lot to add in a couple of days.

Deano -

I don't believe that she's written anything. I've seen her speak, though. She's really thought provoking and funny.

I can suggest these articles

This magazine is quite good

This book is disturbing but is critical knowledge and will explain my bewildering to most hatred of Christoper Reeve.

For a bit lighter reading, I really love this book.

John Hockenbery - I can't believe I've never read anything by him. I *have* to fix that. I've been a fan of his radio shows forever.

Haloscan comments looks like it went down again. I wonder if it's temporary.

Why 28 days? Is 28 some kind of magical number in child development that I'm not aware of? Its kind of like the author's friend says, where do you draw the line? What's the difference between 28 days and, say, three years? As the pro-choice, bleeding-heard freak that I am, I can rationalize, terminating an unborn child (though I don't think I could do it myself)... it seems there's a distinct line between "born" and "unborn". What's the line between "newborn" and four weeks old?

First of all, I just have to say that I can't even imagine not having met you and being lucky enough to call you friend, as well as the disabled people I have known and volunteered with in my life...so I think Singer is TOTALLY whacked! But then again, so was Hitler and people listened to him...He needs to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes before he decides that their life is “avoidable suffering”…

Ms. Johnson does mention the killing of disabled infants… “ It is an interesting exchange. In the lecture hall that afternoon, Singer lays it all out. The ''illogic'' of allowing abortion but not infanticide, of allowing withdrawal of life support but not active killing. Applying the basic assumptions of preference utilitarianism, he spins out his bone-chilling argument for letting parents kill disabled babies and replace them with nondisabled babies who have a greater chance at happiness. It is all about allowing as many individuals as possible to fulfill as many of their preferences as possible. “ “He also says he believes that it should be lawful under some circumstances to kill, at any age, individuals with cognitive impairments so severe that he doesn't consider them ''persons.'' She mentions infanticide many times.

I must live such a sheltered life that I didn't realize this man is out there and I am sure there are tons of people who agree with him-tons of IGNORANT people. People who, I assert, have never ever known a disabled person and the only interaction they have ever had with them is to look the other way and pity them...

Even trying to become a Mother at my age, they will recommend tests to check for abnormalities…the ONLY reason I can see to have the tests is so I can be informed about the birth defect my child will possibly have and be prepared to care for them…

I admire Ms. Johnson for being civil with Mr. Singer-I am not sure I could even look at the man without vomiting…she respects his opinions (aka rantings of a MADMAN) and maybe she can sway him to change his tune…

I read that article last weekend and was super impressed.

To be honest, I can't imagine what kind of response Singer could have - as far as I'm concerned she demolished his arguments.

Although my exposure to this controversy is only through this article, it seems it's the old social vs. individual rights debate, taken to extremes. Does what's best for a society trump an individuals rights? That's surely simplifying it, but it seems Singer makes the case that if someone is somehow a burden on society, that person, or their family, have an obligation to society first, themselves second.

Before going into that, it's clear that the US is currently in neither, or maybe it's both, camps. If abortion - then why not legally assisted suicide? If that, then why not infanticide, for the greater good? None of the issues line up with one underlying common precept.

Or, it points out the debate is using primarily a legality template and not relying on morality. It shows where we, as a society, are all generally conflicted. The separation of church and state is...selective. Our latest administration wants that separation to shrink even more. I think that's wrong, but only in so far as institutionalized religious organizations don't belong in government. But morality itself - why not?

Maybe a civil libertarian would argue that society, The State, the majority, should have absolutely no say over if or how an individual lives his life. The counter position, which I think is related to Singer's, is we all should use responsibility to others as our first guidepost; and self-interest and individual preoccupation second.

The later is way clinical. It has all sorts of fascist overtones. However I also understand the base from where he's saying these odd things. He's essentially stripping all moral judgement from the dialog and trying to come to a logically concluded philosopy.

In my personal life, I feel doing that is just not natural. So many 'liberals' have an anethemia to the 'morality' card, because they equate it with judeo-christian organizations. Not with the doctrine lying underneath. I believe this is a failing of modern, 'liberal', society.

Ms. Johnson seems to do an excellent job of debating without introducing 'fuzzy' moral logic, but I honestly don't see the reason not to introduce it. I think she addresses the tacitcal implications, before dealing with the core strategic issues. Here's how I look at it:

If the core moral precept is the sanctity of life, then all life should be entitled to the right. I know, it's dangerously close to a right to life argument, but bear with me a second (this isn't an easy subject, for anyone, let alone me).

Society, governments, should be responsible for implementing real socialized medical coverage, for everyone. A women should have the legal right to abort, but she shouldn't have to be put in the position of aborting, because she, or society, cannot financially support the child. If she feels bringing the life into the world is wrong, because she does not want to be a mother, or the pregnancy itself was a mistake, well, I would want society to have the resources at hand to still allow the child a decent life. But I know this subject is one I'm not really very knowledgable about. I realize there's a lot more to this and I'm not convinced my argument is tenable. In any case, I guess for me, money, taxes, whatever, should not be more important than life. Instead of spending 250 billion on war, spend it on life.

The idea that society could mandate infanticide, for the betterment of all, would not even be a topic of discussion. Any life, would be considered precious unto itself.

Finally, suicide should be legal - who can judge the value of a life better than oneself? Not even the family. But again, I'm not sure if that's totally feasible. Can a comatose person express their will to die effectively? I've never experienced it. That needs further thought, on my part.

I saw there was some mention of animal rights. If we accept the same sanctity of life template for humans, it should apply to all creatures. Including plants and insects. Everything. Most living things consume some other form of living being to eat, to survive; so that's the only qualification. And yes, therein lies all sorts of rubs, ecologically speaking, so I'll just keep moving along. This is way too long already! Also silly arguments like not taking antibiotics because it would kill a living virus - well, if you don't want to, fine. But personal survival is a core tenant in nature. That seems a logical place to start the strategic philosophical foundation.

Mankind should stop being so pompous to assume we have a better idea than nature. We're just another species. Why should our laws stand outside those built over eons by nature and natural selection? Maybe that's an easier definition of 'morality' for all the failed christians to accept. I can see however where man, as a species, can bring some enlightnment - nature allows for one species to dominate over another, by whatever means they have at their disposal. One hard point to consider is this means mankind, as the masters of war, by natural right, could be 'justified' in exterminating another. See what I mean? It's quite a tangled mess. I defer to Buddha.

This was about as long as that article! Too bad it isn't as well reasoned. Like I said, I already see a lot of holes in my 'logic,' so please don't put this in my file as 'my philosophy.' I'm definitely open to hearing if others can fix my missteps trying to build a universal pacifist code.

I have a hard time with this just because I have looked at you as a disabled person. To mean you have have always been Mike. Not Mike my friend in a wheelchair. We has a society love labels.(I.E. this is my colored friend, or have you met my friend with a third arm sticking out of his head.) I think we try to look better by showing other people look look I have a "special" friend. I have yet to meet someone that says have you met so and so they are my white suburanite friend. I know this off the subject a bit, but some things I hear just reminds me that I do not want to be reffered to has this is Brad my indian friend. Only has Brad my friend. I do not like labels on people. Those who say I don't label should remember how they describe some friend of theirs. Everybody deserves to be looked at the same way. Only when that happens we can stop looking at articles like this one and feel sorry for this poor soul. Authors who write this I feel try to do this so they can better about themselves. They can go around and say look what I did to make this person better. When all they did is serve there own self-rightous attitude.

Quick editing note that should I have NOT looked at you as a disabled person. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

A note on my usage of labels. I use typically try to only use labels as a descriptive differentiation of people to someone who doesn't know the person I speaking of. For example, my work friends don't know my personal life friends. So when talking about a person from one group to a person in the other group, I use some piece of information from another story to quickly identify the one person to the other. When telling stories to Mike at work I would often say things like, "My cousin Sarah (the elementary school PE teacher)..." Or "My friend Reni (the missionary in Africa)" Or "My friend Brooke (the one who went to Vegas with me)" I use those descriptions because those are the way I know Mike will remember these people. Conversly, when I'm relaying a story about work friends to Tiana, I use phrases like, "Mike (the one who moved to Connecticut)" Or if it is relevant to the story I'm about to tell, "Mike (the one in the wheelchair)" Or "_____ (the gay one)" Or "_____ (the guy who is half Japanese)" Or "_____ (the ex-Marine)" But I do this only because these people have never met.

You're free to think of that as prejudice. Those that know me understand that it is just a description. (At least I'm fairly certain Mike knows this.)

Hi, um, I am disabled. I am in a wheelchair. Use whatever. I prefer crip...

My disability does describe me. It doesn't define me.

The most descriptive identifier of Mike I know, is TwangBoy.

Hey, fellow blogger.commies - have you been able to log in?

Ha! That good ol' Google backbone's doing wonders already I see!

And, wait. Did Brad call me "special?" WTF?! :-)

I'm there with Meredith. I know several Nickis, but they're all in different groups.
There's "Crackhouse Nicki," "Work Nicki," and "Cajun Nicki," Among others. If I don't use the prefix, people ask which one. I just choose the most memorable story about them, or a very memorable characteristic of them. Sometimes Mike is "Wheelchair Mike," but he's also been known as "Super Bowl Mike," "Debater Mike," and "Elvis Costello Mike."

Don't blame me for labeling him. Blame his parents for giving him such a common name. If he was named "Teemu" or "Xavier," then I could just use his name.

Yeah. Bob & Carol weren't exactly creative in naming Mike & Matt, were they?

How the hell has this thread degraded to this, fer chrissakes?! It was all good and philosophical and shit and now it's referencing guys named Teemu?

because, my dear, people can only take deep and philosophical for so long before needing a break. i'm sure someone will wade back into the deep murky ethical/moral waters soon. don't fret.