Posted on 09/12/2006 4:28:08 PM PDT by wagglebee
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the logical extension of the culture of death and that society will eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of life. Alex Scadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer saying, "at least he's consistent." In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer said, "One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was created in the image and likeness of God.
Asked about the choice between killing 10 cows or a human, Singer said he would kill the cows, but not because they were of less value, but because humans would mourn the death more. "I've written that it is much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future, and who plans for the future. Normal humans have such plans, but I don't think cows do. And normal humans have family and friends who will grieve their death in ways more vivid and longer-lasting than the way cows may care about other cows. (Although a cow certainly misses her calf for a long time, if the calf is taken from her. That's why there is a major ethical problem with dairy products.) If I really had to make such a decision, I'd kill the cows."
Schadenberg commented saying, "Once again Singer is making distinctions between human beings he would consider normal and those he would consider not normal, thus he is deciding who is a person and who is not. Non-persons are allowed to be killed." The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition leader concluded, "even though Singer does not like to be compared to the Nazi's especially since his parents died in the Holocaust, his philosophical position is identical to what the Nazi's proposed. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is primarily concerned for the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable persons."
See the whole interview:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article1466409...
Well then their is no distinction between a fetus and a fully grown eugenicist, so may Singer should abort himself.
Pro-Life Ping
Ping.
This is totally disgusting!
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
First they want to kill the unborn, then the newborn and the infirmed, next it will be whomever they deem "unworthy of living." It is no different than Hitler.
Wow. I'm glad you pinged those guys. This is sick.
Singer is a Nazi - but at least he is consistent. He'll kill anyone!
"Singer does not like to be compared to the Nazi's especially since his parents died in the Holocaust"
Talk about not learning from history .....
Ahh, Singer, everyone's favorite nutcase.
Singer has advocated killing unwanted babies ever since he was hired at Princeton. Apparently, that's why he was hired.
He also advocates bestiality.
Princeton has really gone down the tubes, with the rest of the Ivy League Colleges. Alumni should not give them a dime while they have monsters like Singer on their payroll.
At least this guy takes a consistent position unlike most people who call themselves pro-choice. This is what groups like NARAL really believe but are afraid to say, for now.
One day someone will have a say in his old age whether or not he is a contributing member to society. What will he say then, if he can. Human life is precious and to protected at all costs. It's beyond disgusting.
Singer is a supreme Darwinist. This kind of horrific thinking is its natural ourworking.
Okay fine, maybe he won't mind being compared to the Taliban, Stalin, Saddam, Pol Pot or Nero.
Singer advances what I consider to be an evil position. But it is good that he does so in an up-front manner. The man who advances his evil position by stealth and with lies is a far greater danger.
Wow. That's quite a leap.
Exactly right! I would bet that the majority of the opinion shapers in the MSM embrace his viewpoint right now.
Vell, Herr Doktor Singer, ve may may a place for uns in our Third Reich!
"But then some animals are more equal than others and therfore some humans are less equal than some animals and should be treated as less important citizens and if you'd follow me into this chamber it will all be clear..."
Peter is one of the most evil men on planet earth. One wonders why lightening hasn't struck him yet. The problem is so many agree with him and revere him. Mostly liberal democrats of course, but also many in the medical profession have been brainwashed and desensitizes to death.
Well if it is just that simple let me give it a shot.... Ahem.
" Question: Should professor singer be allowed to live?"
"Not if it is in the best interest of society...." And whom is to decide what is in the best interest of society? Why not Free Republic? Seems like a perfectly acceptable authority in which to decide Dr. Singers value and usefulness....
That logic holds as much validity as Singers. I am wondering if he would like to live under such a decision making strategy?
[The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition leader concluded, "even though Singer does not like to be compared to the Nazi's especially since his parents died in the Holocaust, his philosophical position is identical to what the Nazi's proposed. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is primarily concerned for the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable persons."]
I wonder who raised Singer, if his parents died in the Holocaust - their jailers? Or maybe it was wolves.
I'd rather kill a cow than Peter Singer, the cow is much better to eat.
Vielen Dank. Das war was ich suchte.
"Wow. That's quite a leap."
Agreed. Just sweep up all the people with whom you disagree, and paint them with the same broad brush.
I think SS-Totenkopfverbande would fit Singer well.
"He'll kill anyone!"
Anyone that can't defend themselves. I'd like to see him try to take out my eldest brother. Imagine a Mike Tyson sort of fellow up against a Gilligan (of Gilligan's Island) sort of fellow.
To prey on the defenseless and weak. Singer is a murderer.
Is he the reincarnation of Himmler?
...
Some should ask him how he'd feel about killing retarded adults.
More likely Eichmann or Mengele.
Why hasn't this total psychopath been locked away yet?
He would probably agree with it.
Oh those insightful "Progressives"... wanting to "progress" our society back to the times of the Spartans.
I have publicly debated Singer in years gone by.
He told me a good portion of his family were killed by the Nazis, then went on to preach philosophy straight from Hitler's mouth. Strange fellow!
I'm sure he would, BUT would he admit it?
If this guy had lived in the 30's&40's he would have performed experiments in Hitler's death camps.
Slippery slope.. Educated evil fool.
If he had his way, he would be doing it in the United States today.
What was the topic of your debate? Was it a fair debate?
"Stange fellow!"
Evil fellow.
Yes let's bathe the children in wine and leave the weak ones on the mountainside.
MUST READ:
"The Sanctity of Life"
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200509--.htm
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/
[During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.]
This man is dangerous.
bump for publicity
I can't help but think that this (whatever in the hell he is) just likes to say outrageous things to get publicity.
"So does that mean we can kill people who have become disabled later in life?"
We'd best decide soon. The abortion survivor generation is coming to where they will be supporting their parent's generation and I have no reason they will treat us any better than our generation treated them: wanted, live; a burden, die.
(excerpt)
The mother of Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer is lucky
that her son is an hypocrite.
Her son is a leading proponent of excising the undesirable —
the imperfect via abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
The disabled would fall under there, also, sometimes, the elderly.
Peter Singer's mother has Alzheimer's.
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp
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.