Posted on 08/20/2014 6:55:16 AM PDT by wagglebee
I think it is time to start calling Peter Singer ”Professor Death.”
The Princeton moral philosopher–an oxymoron in his case–is the world’s foremost proponent of infanticide. He usually uses examples of disabled babies, but the reason he believes they can be killed is that they are supposedly not “persons.” Thus, Singer has refused to state that killing a baby because she was ugly would be wrong.
Professor Death also supports euthanasia, both voluntary and non voluntary against ill human non-persons, such as Alzheimer’s patients.
He has also stated that cognitively devastated people should have been used in developing the hepatitis vaccines instead of chimpanzees. Not surprisingly, he advocates duty-to-die health care rationing based on quality of life invidious discrimination.
Professor Death has come to the defense of his colleague in nihilism, Australia’s Doctor Death, Phillip Nitschke, who favors suicide availability for troubled teenagers and the selling of suicide pills in super markets.
Nitschke has had his medical license suspended for “death coaching,” that is, giving active encouragement and how-to instructions to suicidal people. One such person was a suspected murderer, who received suicide encouragement through Nitschke’s organization, learned how to get the drugs, and did the deed.
Nitschke’s ghoulish suicide proselytizing is completely inconsistent with his role as a licensed medical doctor. But Professor Death thinks Dr. Death’s license should not have been taken because both death colleagues believe in the dangerous concept of ”rational suicide.” From The Age story:
‘‘I think suicide can be rational in the absence of terminal illness and I think I could find you dozens or hundreds of philosophers who would think that …
All bow to the philosophers!
Back to Singer
I think if you know you are going to spend the next 20 years in prison, suicide is a rational option – not for everybody, but for some people,’’ he said, referring to the case of Nigel Brayley, a Perth man who communicated with Dr Nitschke before taking his own life while he was being investigated over his wife’s death.
This is Kevorkianland: K believed that anyone who wanted to die should be able to attend a clinic for that purpose. Apparently, Singer agrees:
In response to concerns about depressed people accessing Exit International information, Professor Singer said: ‘‘I think the solution to that is to legalise voluntary euthanasia and restrict it to medical practitioners, and then Philip won’t have to do this … I think he feels he is a crusader against a law that unnecessarily restricts people’s right to die.”
Who cares what he “feels?” The question is whether his actions are consistent with possessing a medical license under Australian law.
But note, Singer believes that a man suspected of murder should be able to go to a doctor to be killed to avoid prison.
We don’t know why Nitschke was suspended. But he has sold suicide bags to people he knew to be self-destructive, which was outlawed in response to my advocacy against N in Australia in 2001.
He told people how to access poison for suicide. He lied in the media about a woman who announced she was going to commit suicide under his tutelage, claiming she had terminal cancer, when she didn’t. He has encouraged and furthered the suicides of who knows how many people over the years.
Singer might think that is fine. He may think doctors should be allowed to kill. But at least as things are now, when Nitschke committed his ghoulish suicide promotion, it sure isn’t consistent with the practice of ethical medicine.
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.
You are right that if you don’t believe in God, Singer’s ideas are perfectly logical. If we aren’t special — we are just other animals — then it is in the best interest of society to get rid of people who are likely to be net negatives on society as a whole. Sure, you don’t make that judgment lightly because someone with a disability may have other talents, but otherwise, life is another utility judgment. The logical implication is that atheist humanists are just weak and emotion-driven. There is no reason for society to protect children or the elderly if there is no social utility to it so people who want to do so are just being driven by illogical emotional attachment and an guilt.
This is what the Godless don’t want to face — the idea that if there is no God, Peter Singer’s ideas — killing handicapped children, killing the elderly, killing prisoners, killing other members of society who clearly aren’t net producers — have merit.
You’re mixing up terms. “Abomination”, presuming translated from Hebrew to’ebah, always involves conscious decision; presuming genetic predilection is a liberal ruse to take the guilt out of it.
How about we exercise this option for professors?
Yes he is. He does not value life.
Amen.
Until you see the finger prints of divinity on “the least” of us, it’s just going to be a nightmare.
... and the difference would be?
Thank you!
Just scanned it. I’m going to get back to it later to read in detail.
Very, very interesting.
By the looks of it Singer himself will soon come face to face with the truth.
Universities are supposed to advance the culture, but they are, in fact degrading it. This insanity will not stop until the taxpayers and alumni severely cut funding. No one should give money to a university that employs the likes of Singer.
I did not know that. Well, that makes it even worse.
What a way to honor your kin.
And keep in mind that this will also include those who have religious or political beliefs that the powers that be deem unacceptable.
Singer's beliefs hinge not only on the denial of God, but also on the absurd notion that a person BECOMES a human as part of their development and by the same theory can lose their human nature at some point or never become human at all. This thinking has been at the core of the left's death mongering for over a century: they will agree that it's wrong to kill a human being, but they believe they have the right to define a person as a non-human.
And how many “conservatives” secretly agree?
Lol! Ain't that the truth!
These people are insane.
Exhibit A, ladies and gentlemen.
I don't think that any real conservatives agree.
However, I think that a great many libertarians agree with Singer's entire agenda.
hm... might be an idea I could get behind!
“Peter Singer is pure evil”
Actually, if you subscribe to secular humanism, as a larger number of people in this country do, he is imminently logical. Any notion of the value of human life beyond utility to the society as a whole is preposterous.
YES!
Actually, the idea of non-Theists having any moral or ethical system whatsoever is preposterous.
And how many “conservatives” secretly agree?
I don't think that any real conservatives agree.
Better check the comments again, bub.
All this is what comes from making economics the core of conservatism instead of G-d and morality.
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.