The Chronicle: Colloquy: Responses

As a defender of the Constitutional rights of all persons with disabilities, regardless of age, I find Mr. Singer's statement "killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person" as indefensible on any basis. I do not however, deny his right to state it. The statement should be debated on the merits of its logic and reason, just as Socrates modeled for his fellow Athenians. My guess is that in retrospect Mr. Singer would rather have had not made that statement public for the same reason President Roosevelt had wished that he had not revealed his intention not to run for a third term...it did not help him one iota in carrying out his progressive policies. And it is also true that after Hitler all discussions regarding life and death are difficult, if not impossible, to rationalize.

: -- Ernest Biller, Coordinator Disability Services, Shasta College, Redding, California (posted 3/14, 3:05 p.m., E.S.T.)

previous response

next response

JOIN THE DEBATE

STEP 1: Your contact information (required)

Your name:

Your title & institution:

Your phone:

Your e-mail address:

STEP 2: Your comments

STEP 3: Submit!

Be sure to include your name and affiliation. Legitimate requests for anonymity will be honored.

The Chronicle maintains Colloquy as an open forum where readers can comment on issues. Submissions may be condensed or edited for clarity, but editing is kept to a minimum. We correct errors in spelling, punctuation, etc. In addition, we remove statements that have the potential to be libelous or to slander someone. In cases in which people make claims that could be libelous, we will remove the names of institutions and departments. But in those cases, we will not alter the ideas contained in the submissions.

Please read our privacy policy or our Colloquy help page if you have questions.

Check this box only if you would like this submission to be considered for publication as a letter to the editor in the printed Chronicle.