Peter Singer
Posted on 11/27/2005 10:56:54 AM PST by 1066AD
"Meanwhile..this fellow would not "get" the irony.. "
I fear he gets it all too well.
Singer is on record as arguing that a chimpanzee or dog has more rights to respect than, say, a mentally handicapped baby.
Any other position, he says, is simply speciesism - priveleging human beings simply because they are human beings.
There is a consistent if warped logic at work here. He's simply taking certainly prevalent assumptions to their natural conclusion.
In 1993, ethicist Peter Singer shocked many Americans by suggesting that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that the attending physician should kill some disabled babies on the spot. Five years later, his appointment as Decamp Professor of Bio-Ethics at Princeton University ignited a firestorm of controversy, though his ideas about abortion and infanticide were hardly new. In 1979 he wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons”; therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”1
The 52-year-old academic is widely considered the father of the international animal rights movement yet has argued parents should have the right to euthanize newborn children who have severe handicaps. In his books, Singer has said that children less than one month old have no human consciousness and do not have the same rights as others. "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person," he wrote in one book. "Sometimes it is not wrong at all."
an interesting read, regardless
Ever since the Herald died they are ever more liberal.
I would replace "yet" with "therefore."
If I had only stopped at the posting date on your About page, I'd have taken you for a troll. Since I read your "In Forum" links, I think you are an agent provocateur--given you are posting as more-or-less a biblical literalist on crevo threads, and as someone who agrees with Peter Singer here.
I have never met or corresponded with anyone else who holds those two views simultaneously.
BTW, you're still wrong--any pregnancy and child-rearing compels others to undergo hardship and suffering.
Cheers!
I sure wish I'd bought stock in Intel 30 or 31 years ago (right after the collapse of the "Nifty Fifty"); but by the same token I'm glad I DIDN'T buy stock in Polaroid. :-)
On a related note, here is a similar vanity I wrote yesterday.
Cheers!
Welcome to the brave new world. Sounds a lot like a cross between Nazism and the worst of the Communist System.
I predict...
in 2040, Peter Singer will be long gone, to that special part of Hell he will share with Saddam, Osama, Mohammed Atta, the "Prophet" Muhammad and Michael Schiavo...
count on it!
Nah. There won't be any left.
What a crock! These writers are all extreme Leftists which is typical of the once very Conservative DMN.
I saw the author, and quit reading, since he regurgitates all his points from previous articles...... what a foul creature!
If Rush and Hannity have their way, there WON'T be any "left" remaining in America in 2040.
Cheers!
Full Disclosure: "Imagine...no liberals"
By 2040, Peter Singer will be dead.
HMM. Maybe we will stick around awhile then:')
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.