Today's random rage...

[conuly]

First we get the disabled girl who was sterilized and given hormones so she'd stay small (so she'd be easier to care for, an admirable goal, no matter how dubious the decision - and this is pretty damn dubious), naturally without her consent....

And just when you're getting over the WTF-ness of that....

Doctors: let us kill disabled babies (actual title!)

I haven't even gotten past the title yet. Taken a gander at the "related articles" section, with such gems as "Haunted mother who backs mercy killing" and "It's your right to die if you want to". Mind, I tend to agree with the second, disabled or not (though adding in proper help first, because it is a shame to up and kill yourself without a better reason than most seem to have), but it hardly applies to babies. I mean, let's say that word again - b a b y.

It's like we never left the dark ages. At least they were more honest about it, just stuck their unwanted children outside.

Comments

[wakasplat.livejournal.com]

Well, the thing is, I've never denied that some people feel differently. It's a matter of, in policy, which views take precedence. I happen to think that killing (or "allowing someone to die") someone who might want to live is a far worse crime than letting someone live who might want to die. It's not that I think that other people's opinions exist, it's that I think they should carry less weight in policy about newborns and other people who can't speak about it, because the potential consequences are worse.

As far as the other goes -- I've experienced several levels and kinds of consciousness, including the sense of being barely aware of things and trapped. The difference is that I don't hold my identity, as a person or as a human, in only the parts of me that are conscious in a certain particular way that qualifies in yours and probably Singer's definition of consciousness. So I don't think I'd be "not me" if those parts were not there (as they at times have been fully or partially), because I don't hold the rather ridiculous notion that the only thing that makes me particularly "me" is what I hold a certain very particular kind of awareness of. I'm quite aware some people are strange like that with identity, but I again think because of the potential ramifications of those opinions, they shouldn't hold much weight in policy about people who can't fight such dehumanizing rhetoric aimed at them. Benefit of the doubt should always to go the personhood of the person in question, otherwise we'll have a really bad situation on our hands, and I for one don't ever want to be the casualty of such foolishness.

[leora.livejournal.com]

This is why I say it comes down to a fundamental disagreement of values. You hold life as vitally important a value and believe that an error that destroys a life is one of the absolute worst kinds. I don't agree. I believe that happiness and a lack of torture is even more important than life, and a mistake that leads to a life of torture is worse than a mistake that leads to a lack of life.

That's not a disagreement where anyone can be right or wrong. It comes down to fundamental values - axioms. We hold different ones. I don't expect you to ever change yours.

I also obviously hold a different opinion about what makes me me. I think the fact that I breathe and excrete and otherwise have the very basic acts of life is totally irrelevant to who I am. If I could survive in a purely mental way with no physical body, I would still be just as much me. But if I were lobotomized to an extent where the only brain processes going on were those of basic life maintenance, I would consider myself to be dead, and only a body to remain. I view myself as far, far more than just a physical body. My body is just what I need to wear to exist. And if I'm gone, I don't care about the clothes.