Peter Singer and Jamie Bérubé
Everyone should check out the response of Michael Bérubé — father of a son with Down syndrome and, completely incidentally, my fellow graduate student at the University of Virginia many years ago — to Peter Singer, here. The post has all the necessary links. Here’s a sample:
I do think “we cannot expect a child with Down syndrome to chat with us about the latest Woody Allen film” instates a distinctly Upper West Side-y performance criterion, and is worth critiquing on those grounds alone. More seriously, I note that in the 1920s we were told that people with Down syndrome were incapable of learning to speak; in the 1970s, we were told that people with Down syndrome were incapable of learning how to read. OK, so now the rationale for seeing these people as somewhat less than human is their likely comprehension of Woody Allen films. Twenty years from now we’ll be hearing “sure, they get Woody Allen, but only his early comedies—they completely fail to appreciate the breakthrough of Interiors.” Surely you understand my sense that the goalposts are being moved around here in a rather arbitrary fashion.
Hat tip to Culture Making.
Thank you for linking this. I’ve read Michael’s book, Life As We Know It, and heard his interview about Jamie on a MN NPR station. He once elevated my lowly blog by leaving comment when I referenced his book.
I disagree with many of his (snarky blog!) positions, but like him very much anyway; he’s allowed his love for his son to pull him so far along. As most of us do.
God bless Michael, Jamie, and family.
— Julana · Dec 4, 05:01 PM · #
I’ll second Julana and thank you for the link.
I have nothing to say about whether it’s simply wrong to abort a child with Down syndrome — that’s a deeply personal decision either way, and none of my business. However, I think Peter Singer tends to make the case for bringing such a child into the world (with eyes wide open). Here’s why:
Singer says:
Seems to me that, insofar as your expectations as a parent are lowered and lowering, the aesthetic reasons to keep the child actually increase. This is because the abilities of a child with Down syndrome will tend toward a mean; the lower your expectations, the better your chances of being pleasantly surprised, the greater your odds of experiencing gratitude (one of cleanest, most rewarding mental states available to a human mind) — gratitude for little victories and unexpected breakthroughs and cherished memories which, had you taken the other road, you would not have had. There’s also a much greater chance of annealing your relationship with your spouse in the crucible of conflict, determination and shared purpose — no small gift.
Purpose-laden toil and better-than-expected, hard-earned fruit — these are the sturdiest keys to long-term happiness (this has been re-proven by Nobel-laureate Daniel Kahneman, among others). Plus, when you set against this dynamic the likelihood that a “normal child” will fall short of your irrationally high expectations, raising a child with Down syndrome looks awfully rational (again, at least from a purely aesthetic standpoint; and of course, all this might be mitigated by an emotional attachment to potential grandchildren, or petty social self-consciousness, etc. — but still.)
— JA · Dec 4, 07:36 PM · #