Pete & the crip
February 19, 2003 8:33 AM   Subscribe

I found this account of a meeting between a disabled lawyer and Princeton philosophy prof Peter Singer moving and fascinating. [NYT/reg. req'd]
posted by goethean (7 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: previously...



 
Also, here is a NYT forum thread with the author. I have to say that I agree with the first comment.
posted by goethean at 8:46 AM on February 19, 2003


Also linked four days ago here.
posted by redfoxtail at 8:52 AM on February 19, 2003


I used to try to explain that in fact I enjoy my life, that it's a great sensual pleasure to zoom by power chair on these delicious muggy streets, that I have no more reason to kill myself than most people. But it gets tedious.

goethean, did you take the politcal compass test? As it had a question regarding Harriet McBryde Johnson condition at birth. I found the question to be social but now see it as political.

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.''

This is wrong, one word says it all, kill.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:56 AM on February 19, 2003


Ah, scheist. I thoiught the article was new and didn't look for it here.
posted by goethean at 9:01 AM on February 19, 2003


I read this when it came out. It's a good story, very empowering, helps you put your own troubles in the proper perspective. But it really just didn't seem to go anywhere, it was more of a diary of sorts. The Princeton prof isn't as much of an ogre as he sounds like and should have been interviewed in the article for balance, or written an adjoining counterpoint. It probably would have helped her argument, not that she needs help, seeing how she's both brilliant and on the right side of the argument...but I would have liked to hear a bit more about where he is coming from.
posted by vito90 at 9:04 AM on February 19, 2003


I thought this was a wonderful piece, both in the usual sense and because it made me wonder. The author is brilliant and very sympathetic. But where does it lead? Is a wish for health also a devaluation of the unhealthy?

Ultimately, I read this an argument for diversity in all its forms. We don't all have to be perfect in order to be valued. But where to draw the lines?

This is a personal question for me, because my family has a history of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, conditions which are thought to be partially heritable. Under a eugenics program, I would never have been born, nor would any of my brothers and sisters. And yet, we have all made significant contributions to the world, partly because of our partial craziness.

It makes me want to read Singer.
posted by alms at 9:22 AM on February 19, 2003


I've always liked Singer's views on abortion. Not because I agree with him of course, but because he unwittingly makes a great case against abortion with his "sure it's infantacide, but what's so bad about that?" argument. I read him in college and still can't figure out how anyone can take him seriously.
posted by boltman at 9:30 AM on February 19, 2003


« Older affirmative action bake sale   |   corky cuteness Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments