Comments for Edward Rad

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by Joanna

Joanna — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 11:37:50 +0000

I thought that Singer’s view on selective infanticide was extremely illogical and demeaning because of the fact that he considered disabled beings as “worse off.” Regardless of disabilities or not, humans are still humans and they all deserve, at the very least, a chance to survive. Singer’s view on simply killing those that are born differently would destroy all chances. Johnson herself, is evidence and living proof that disabilities do not inhibit surviving and considering her current status as a lawyer, she is not considered “worse off” at all. It was even a bit surprising to me to see that even after Singer interacted with Johnson, his view on selective infanticide refused to change.

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by Dalon

Dalon — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:06:51 +0000

Although SInger’s arguments are justifiable and seem valid, I do not support them. Even if they may seem convincing, it is still saying to kill another human being whether or not they are disabled. I believe that just because a baby is disabled doesn’t mean that you should automatically kill them.

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by Maggie

Maggie — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 04:06:45 +0000

The fact that Singer does not consider “individuals with cognitive impairments” people is very disturbing. Sure, they may look different and they may have to live differently, but that doesn’t give anyone the right to take away their life. His first argument was killing the babe will “put them out of misery.” I found this a terrible reason. They may have to live differently because of their disabilities but there are other ways to help them besides taking their life away. Aiding them and supporting them on their side are other ways to help them. It tells them they are no less than any other human being and that they deserve the chance to live and make a difference in someone’s life. He also proposes the “replacement-baby theory” which I think is absurd. Her thinks that by allowing this, it will “fulfill as many preferences as possible”. This is also a ridiculous argument and I agree with Johnson’s counter argument which is “the presence or absence of a disability doesn’t predict the quality of life.” Many people with disabilities can live a similar or even better life than those without disabilities as long as they are given a chance to make this happen. The replacement baby will not be equal and does not make up for the life of the baby that has been killed. The comparison she makes between her brother and her was a strong argument. They cannot be compared in any way because of the distinct qualities that make them who they are. He believes “disabilities make people worse off” and that it’s “weird for an individual to take care of the disabled person.” At times, it may be a burden and it may be annoying. But her counter argument beats this fact which is in this society, people will be paid to take care of the person. Also I think that if it was someone who we truly loved that needed to be taken care of, it wouldn’t matter how annoying or weird it was, as long as we want the best for them. Helping others all the time isn’t weird at all. Instead, this is no different from the everyday jobs we encounter such as helping out our parents, friends, siblings or even strangers. Just because it is someone disabled does not make it weird. I also find the fact that he questioned her about the meat issue very hypocritical. He is in no position to question her about valuing animal life less than human life when he is doing the exact opposite.

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by Jamie

Jamie — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 04:06:24 +0000

I think Professor Singer has a very interesting view on killing babies that have disabilities. I don’t necessarily agree with it but I do see where he is coming from. Even though Singer thinks he is doing a service, I don’t think he has any right to judge until he has a child with disabilities. I don’t think he has a right to say that people with disabilities are miserable because they don’t have to be. It is people like him that put the reality in such a harsh manner. People in society should treat people and animals in a kind manner regardless of appearance, so that no one has a miserable life.

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by Hamlet

Hamlet — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 02:43:38 +0000

I disagree with Singers views on killing disabled babies. I think it is an extreme in thought and that every baby changes with in time. Some disabled babies have disabilities that with time disappear or reduce the disability, I also believe Singer needs to not think as human and animals as one to say but as two extremely different worlds. Our society is not a Utopian society where everyone is perfect and everything and everyone have no flaws. Animals still live in a world of survival of the fittest but humans live in a world where even the one who is weakest can still survive. I feel that if you want animal rights then focus on animal rights but don’t try to also destroy human rights. In this society, although it isn’t a perfect world or government, it’s not up to the individual to decide everyone’s fate but rather society as a whole (which in the US it’s the senators that decide everything).

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by Keoana

Keoana — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 02:34:44 +0000

I think that while Singer has made some valid and convincing points, I was completely turned away by what was said in the very beginning about being able to murder people with this disability at any age. A statement such as that placed in the beginning of the article affected my views on the entire reading and stuck with me throughout it.

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by Aysha

Aysha — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 02:24:11 +0000

Even though Professor Singer has legitimate reasons to hold such a belief, one which pertains to the murder of infants, his reasons don’t overpower the value of life. It is true that disabled infants go through a lot of hardships and pain; however, it is not up to individuals such as Professor Singer to make decisions for these infants. I believe that due to Professors intimate connection with animals, he has forgotten the most important distinction between man and animal: a mind which gives them the choice to make their own decisions.

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by Sicheng

Sicheng — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 02:19:49 +0000

Ms. Johnson beliefs are based on the belief that people should not perceive people like her to be living painful miserable lives. Her arguments are almost completely fueled by pathos. It is no surprise that many of her arguments are fueled by pathos thorough her years of being disable. She hates the fact that people believe she is living a life of pain and suffering. She despises Dr. Singer because of the world he envisions and talks negativity about him. While she may not feel miserable, other who suffer from disabilities far worse from hers’ may feel miserable and painful. In the end it should all be about choice.

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by The Boss

The Boss — Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:25:10 +0000

I believe Professor Singer’s arguments hold alot of merit. Although Attorney Johnson’s arguments use some logic, a lot of them appeal to pathos. Also she doesnt see Professor Johnson as a monster and potrays him as a man who is more focused on making lucid arguments that being condescending to her. I dont know if its because of her affinity towards him, but she also doesnt really try to deter his arguments and fights for acceptance in a world instead of shutting him down and silencing people with views like him, which is what her agency and people who support her would like her to do.

Comment on Discussion: Unspeakable Conversations by Chloe

Chloe — Sun, 22 Jul 2012 19:21:29 +0000

Harriet McBryde Johnson uses pathos to prove many of her arguments; however, the structure of her thoughts behind her arguments are controversial as well. An example of this is her entire introduction paragraph, which is thick with irony and intensely judgemental. While Johnson ultimately accepts Singer’s position because she believes it has no significance, the conversation she has with her sister is also symbolic of the conversation Johnson has within herself. This conversation continuously rages and one side argues that Singer is “an ultimate evil” (10), but Johnson accepts that she cannot define him as such because it would alter her entire perception of everyone around her. This statement reflects a tone of defeat and somewhat emphasizes Singer’s arguments.