Peter Singer Defends His Views on Killing Disabled Babies Via Infanticide

  • Thread starter Thread starter KathleenElsie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KathleenElsie

Guest
**

**
**London, England (LifeNews.com) – **
Click to expand...
Princeton University philosophy professor Peter Singer came under international condemnation when he announced he favors killing disabled babies via infanticide. Though he was blasted from both sides of the political spectrum, the so-called ethicist still holds to the position. In an interview with The Independent newspaper in England, Singer said he would definitely kill a disabled newborn baby. He indicated he would do so “if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.” Singer said he found it surprising that abortion advocates would disagree with his views. “Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion,” Singer said. Meanwhile, he claimed he had one point of common beliefs with pro-life advocates. “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 fetus and the newborn baby,” Singer explained. However, Singer’s view is that, instead of legal protection, both disabled babies and the unborn deserve death. Read the complete story.

Please read carefully. This states clearly that those that support abortion are also for infanticide. This has been my stand since abortion was legalized.
 
I know this came from WND, but this person is really out there:
Code: 
**'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born**
*'Animal-rights' promoter asserts actual birth makes no difference*
Posted: September 14, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

An internationally known Princeton “bioethicist” and animal-rights activist says he’d kill disabled babies if it were in the “best interests” of the family, because he sees no distinction in the child’s life whether it is born or not, and the world already allows abortion.

Full Story PF
 
Interesting, but I don’t trust anything from WND unless I see it corroborated some place else!
😉
 
FightingFat said:
Interesting, but I don’t trust anything from WND unless I see it corroborated some place else!
😉
Click to expand...
True in most cases, but I have heard of this person before. The article is true on his beliefs.

PF
 
Ah, Peter Singer. I guessed it was him.

The interesting thing is that, as he says, this view is the logical conclusion of thinking abortion is acceptable - though most people who think abortion is ok would find this view abhorrent.

I’m all for lots of discussion on this idea. I think it may help in showing people who think abortion is ok that they are wrong.

Mike
 
MikeWM said:
Ah, Peter Singer. I guessed it was him.

The interesting thing is that, as he says, this view is the logical conclusion of thinking abortion is acceptable - though most people who think abortion is ok would find this view abhorrent.

I’m all for lots of discussion on this idea. I think it may help in showing people who think abortion is ok that they are wrong.

Mike
Click to expand...
If you use logical progression, at some point murder will be legal. It will be considered another type of an abortion. I hope I am not around when that happens because it will be anarchy.

PF
 
KathleenElsie said:
Please read carefully. This states clearly that those that support abortion are also for infanticide. This has been my stand since abortion was legalized.
Click to expand...
So what is wrong with Peter Singer’s views about that topic? Wouldn’t premitting the infant to die prevent the infant from living a lifetime full of pain and suffering?
 
ribozyme said:
So what is wrong with Peter Singer’s views about that topic? Wouldn’t premitting the infant to die prevent the infant from living a lifetime full of pain and suffering?
Click to expand...
Killing innocent people is objectively wrong no matter the intention.
 
People is defined as any human being. Such a state is achieved at the moment each of us was conceived and lasts until we die.
 
If I read that right, Singer is saying to kill them after birth. Almost no one even in the pro-abortion camp claims a child out of the womb is not a person. Notice the vice becoming tighter. That is, kill the elderly and infirm, kill the fetus. Now people are suggesting kill the newly born. What’s next? Kill the retired before they collect Social Security?
 
Scottgun said:
If I read that right, Singer is saying to kill them after birth. Almost no one even in the pro-abortion camp claims a child out of the womb is not a person. Notice the vice becoming tighter. That is, kill the elderly and infirm, kill the fetus. Now people are suggesting kill the newly born. What’s next? Kill the retired before they collect Social Security?
Click to expand...
Sorry about my lack of reading comprehension in my last post though. I was attempting to justify the notion of abortion when it is discovered that the embryo or fetus as a hereditary disease.
 
I support extending the right to abort Australian-born ethicists up to the age of 70 years.

Singer is 60—so I suggest, in the best interests of everyone around him, his mother has the right to terminate her offspring.
 
Wolseley said:
I support extending the right to abort Australian-born ethicists up to the age of 70 years.

Singer is 60—so I suggest, in the best interests of everyone around him, his mother has the right to terminate her offspring.
Click to expand...
His mother is dead.
 
This topic is more about eugenics than it is about infanticide. Eugenics is a process of selection - selection based on the criteria set by those in charge. It’s a process of deleting “inferior” genes from the gene pool.
Even random abortion can be included in eugenics because the birth mother has made a decision that the fetus is “inferior” and not appropriate to her personal lifestyle.
It is inevitable that eugenics will be standard practice and will be carried out around the planet. Because it will be easy, it will be cheap and the consequences will be unknown.
I don’t agree with the philosophy of eugenics. There is no best or worst scenario. The human species will never know what potential they are losing by its practice just as we will never know what twenty million dead humans in WWII would have produced for betterment of mankind.
But inevitable it is.
 
Seriously, why do you Catholics view him as the incarnation of the devil?
 
ribozyme said:
Just look at how Catholics respond to Singer! I do not know why they have to vehemently disagree with him.
Click to expand...
Given the outrageous ideas he spews, I think the Catholic reponse is reasonably measured. He does get one thing right in that he talks about how saying a fetus is somehow not a person but a newborn is a person is nonsense. Proving that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top