Post #10: Springer Pt.2

What is Singer’s stance on abortion, euthanasia, and the issue of poverty?

Abortion
In regards to abortion, Singer thinks that it is a woman’s right to choose whether or not she carries a child. He says “to force anyone to endure an avoidable hardship of that kind is contrary to our general belief in promoting individual choice and freedom.” Singer thinks that as long as an abortion is carried out within the firs “20 weeks of gestation,” no murder is committed. Although he does not deny that an embryo is human and alive, he does deny whether or not it can be considered a person in that it experiences pain and suffering and is aware of its existence. Therefore, killing a fetus that is less than 20 weeks developed is no more different and/or the equivalent to killing “the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner.” It isn’t until after the 20th week that “the fetus first becomes a being of moral significance when it develops the capacity to feel pain.”

Poverty
Singer’s position on poverty is considered unethical because it tends to go against traditional morality. For starters, he thinks the issue of poverty to be an issue of pro-life and that pro-life advocates should stop focusing on the viability of the fetus and starting focusing on the lives that already exist here on Earth and are in need of genuine help. His position, ultimately, is considered too demanding for most.

In the article, Singer focuses on America’s role in the fight against poverty. He points out that Americans spend a third of their income on things that can be considered unnecessary. To illustrate his point, he comments on how money spent on unnecessary things is money that “could mean the difference between life and death for children in need.” Springer thinks it to be unconscionable that Americans spend so frivolously. Springer suggests that Americans can afford the paltry $200 he thinks anyone and everyone should donate but goes further by suggesting that Americans need no more than $30,000 to live and anything more than that should be donated.

Euthanasia
As defined by www.dictionary.com, euthanasia is “Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition,” or as Singer adds that it is also “used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress.” Singer points out that there are three types of euthanasia: “voluntary euthanasia,” “involuntary euthanasia,” and “non-voluntary euthanasia.”

“Voluntary euthanasia” is the one form of euthanasia that is carried out at behest of the patient. Sometimes it is referred to as “assisted suicide.” The request for “voluntary euthanasia” can also be “voluntary even if a person is unable…to indicate the wish to die.” That is, if the person is unable to consent to euthanasia due to being incapacitated by illness or accident or is unfit mentally, at the moment assistance is needed most, a written request, written prior to said affliction while said person was of sound mind, can and will be honored. In cases such as these, Springer points out that “euthanasia involves the killing of a person, a rational and self-conscious being” and this is a much more serious matter than any other form of euthanasia because “they can know that they exist over time and will, unless they die, continue to exist” but “when the foreseeable continued existence is dreaded rather than desired however, the desire to die may take the place of the normal desire to live, reversing the reasons against killing based on the desire to live.”

“Involuntary euthanasia” is “involuntary when the person killed is capable of consenting to her own death, but does not do so, either because she is not asked, or because she is asked and chooses to go on living.” Springer points out that there is a “difference between killing someone who chooses to go on living and killing someone who has not consented to being killed, but if asked, would have consented.” This would entail killing someone for their own sake in that they were killed only “to prevent unbearable suffering on the part of the person killed.” This form of euthanasia is “very rare.” In cases such as these, Springer points out that “euthanasia is only justifiable if those killed either…lack the ability to consent to death” or “have the capacity to choose between their own continued life or death and to make an informed, voluntary, and settled decision to die.”

“Non-voluntary euthanasia” is defined as “If a human being is not capable of understanding the choice between life and death” and “ when the subject is now but once was capable of making the crucial choice, and did not then express any preference relevant to her present condition.” This would usually “include incurably ill or severely disable infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved, without having previously requested or rejected euthanasia in these circumstances.” In cases such as these, Springer equates the recipient of “non-voluntary euthanasia” to that of “disabled infants,” in that, although conscious, “they are not self-conscious, rational, or autonomous.” Therefore, any claims that are made on their behalf for the “right to life or autonomy” are not warranted. In short, up until the point that “non-voluntary euthanasia” is considered, “their lives have no intrinsic value,” insomuch that they have not been living a life to begin with. In this instance, “death is a benefit for the one killed.”