babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » babble book lounge   » The review of Margaret Sommerville's Book

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The review of Margaret Sommerville's Book
Wanaka Woman
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13609

posted 30 November 2006 12:29 PM      Profile for Wanaka Woman   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought, as did your reviewer, that Sommerville made an ethical stumble about same sex marriage and the bearing of children who may be "denied" knowledge of their biological other gendered parent.
Aside from the cogent remarks made by your reviewer, I add the observation that as an adopted child, I have been denied information about my biological heritage for 60 years. Using Sommerville's logic, should we suggest that it is unethical to adopt children because of this "denial" of information? Of course not, her "ethical reasoning" for the caveat about the children of gays and lesbians is simply unsound.

From: Kelowna | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 30 November 2006 04:01 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We had a thread about Sommerville not so long ago.

Maybe an Honourable moderator could find it.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 30 November 2006 05:05 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
U of T honours Somerville

Ryerson U. honours Somerville

Note: the search for old threads works better when you use Somerville as a search term - not Sommerville.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2006 05:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The Honourable moderator doesn't appear to be around, so I thought I'd search for it in his absence. But M. Spector's too quick for me!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jrose
babble intern
Babbler # 13401

posted 30 November 2006 05:09 PM      Profile for jrose     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I remember reading this over the summer on BlogTO. I remember reading some of her work recently in the Ottawa Citizen and passing it around to my work collegues in disbelief.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 30 November 2006 05:27 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wow. I just read through that first thread and I've got clenched teeth all over again. Oh well. It's a new thread and hopefully a more civil one.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 04 December 2006 04:01 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Margaret Somerville was on Alan Gregg's television programme last night.

She claimed that there are two camps among ethicists:

1)The principled group (including herself) and

2) utilitarians, ie. those who are seeking the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

In proclaiming herself to be "principled", she mainly meant that she believes that fetuses and their predecessor blastomeres have value as potential humans. Thus, she argued that it is "principled" to oppose stem cell research because stem cells partake of humanness in some way.

A deep problem with her thinking is that she takes the world as a given.

So, for example, she thinks she is being principled because she makes no cost-benefit calculation made with respect to the fetus.

It's sacred.

But when it comes to the life of the person doomed to death from cancer, she is indifferent. Somehow, THAT life isn't sacred. She makes her one-sided calculation, and leaves it at that.

But in the real world, her decision AUTOMATICALLY and INEVITABLY causes the death of the cancer patient. Claiming that you won't do cost-benefit is just a way of saying "screw off" to the person with the disease.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vanessa S
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12813

posted 06 December 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for Vanessa S     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sad to see UofT and Ryerson honouring a hate-monger.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca