Peter Singer Defends His Views on Killing Disabled Babies Via Infanticide

[WanderAimlessly]

Just look at how Catholics respond to Singer! I do not know why they have to vehemently disagree with him.

That is because the murder of infants for any reason is murder and that is what he is advocating. That alone should be abhorent to anyone.

PF

 

[mommyof4]

Just look at how Catholics respond to Singer! I do not know why they have to vehemently disagree with him.

You are not serious, are you?

Probably because most Catholics have been and will contine to find “legal” murder abhorent. Like we find Hitler’s extermination of Jews and other “unfit” human beings morally abhorent. Like we feel abouth ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world.

This man is advocation killing living babies! I think he is taking it beyond what most pro-abortion advocates would think is ethical.

It is really sad and sick to see people advocating for eugenics and infantcide.

 

[Scottgun]

I’m noticing a change in the pro-abortion position. They have completely lost the fetus-is-not-a-human argument. I have had a pro-abortionist tell me flat out that the fetus is a human, but killing them is justifiable. And there you have it. They have gone from “only when mother is in danger”, to “it’s not even human”, to “they are human, but it is ok to kill them.” Proving once again that concupisence darkens the intellect, or as Mark Shea says, “Sin makes you stupid.”

Scott

 

[Liberalsaved]

Please read carefully. This states clearly that those that support abortion are also for infanticide. This has been my stand since abortion was legalized.

Dang straight I am. I must be, because if you are not “pro-life” you all have the same views. I love it when dialogue isn’t even attempted before blanket statements are made. Especially when that blanket statement is an expression of the opinion of one person.

 

[mommyof4]

Let me say it again:

I think he is taking it beyond what most pro-abortion advocates would think is ethical
.

 

[Lischou]

Just look at how Catholics respond to Singer! I do not know why they have to vehemently disagree with him.

He speaks of “legalizing murder” on newborns and you wonder why we disagree with him?

I have a question for you…do you understand what Catholicism teaches? If so, then you no longer need to wonder why we disagree with Singer.

Lisa

 

[John28]

I’m noticing a change in the pro-abortion position. They have completely lost the fetus-is-not-a-human argument. I have had a pro-abortionist tell me flat out that the fetus is a human, but killing them is justifiable. And there you have it. They have gone from “only when mother is in danger”, to “it’s not even human”, to “they are human, but it is ok to kill them.” Proving once again that concupisence darkens the intellect, or as Mark Shea says, “Sin makes you stupid.”

Scott

Let’s hope the next step will be "they are human and it is not ok to kill them. Strange world where some consider this an extreme position.

 

[ribozyme]

He speaks of “legalizing murder” on newborns and you wonder why we disagree with him?

I have a question for you…do you understand what Catholicism teaches? If so, then you no longer need to wonder why we disagree with Singer.

Lisa

What exactly is it wrong to allow parents to have the choice to abort their baby with a hereditary disease? Wouldn’t that prevent human suffering in the world?

I do know what Catholicism teaches, but why does their teaching force one to live a life full of disadvantages? So how exactly is Singer’s choice not in the best interest of the baby? The baby cannot think, have desires for the future, etc. so it is not much of a person as one who is more mature. So how are we harming the baby if it could barely precieve pain?

I am not advocating this, but I think that under a secular morality system, this could be deemed as “morally acceptable.”

Personally, I find most forms of abortion grotesque, but this is my subjective opinion as a baby has the semblance of a human being. But, I do think it is “morally acceptable” to terminate a fetus that has a hereditary disease as this will prevent a life of suffering. They do not HAVE TO BE killed, but as I have said, it is morally acceptable.

 

[alsligh]

My daughter is disabled - she has cerebral palsy. I’m quite certain that she is happy being alive, despite the pain and suffering she has experienced. But in her young life, she has touched many people who have watched her tackle each obstacle with an enthusiasm that is unmatched. Not a week goes by that someone does not say to me that they are encouraged by just being around her. It is easy to see that her life has meaning - a meaning that many won’t find in 100 years of life on this earth.

The truth is that the person who has experienced the MOST pain and suffering in our family is NOT my daughter. It is me. It pains me to see her struggle, and I have cried many a tear of frustration, but she knows only what she is, and not what she could have been without the disability, and that is a blessing.

If the purpose for killing a disabled infant is to prevent pain and suffering, then it would be best to kill the parents, but let the children live. Yet, I don’t expect to hear that argument from any ethicist in my lifetime.

Peace and joy,
Andi

 

[vz71]

What exactly is it wrong to allow parents to have the choice to abort their baby with a hereditary disease? Wouldn’t that prevent human suffering in the world?

No, it would not.
Human suffering would continue.

All killing off those with some hereditary disease would do is introduce another evil into the world.

 

[Jeffrey]

Because he is wrong. Abortion = Murder… Period.

Just look at how Catholics respond to Singer! I do not know why they have to vehemently disagree with him.

 

[Scottgun]

The subjective does not overrule the objective. ALL people suffer and it is completely arbitrary to say this person’s suffering warrants killing to prevent it. There is the elephant in the living room that needs to be acknowledged–it is wrong to kill another human being who has done nothing to deserve it.

Scott

 

[MikeWM]

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

Err… you’re getting my point, but thinking that I’m using it in the wrong way, for some reason. The point is exactly that the logic of abortion leads to Peter Singer’s ideas, and worse.

Mike

 

[ribozyme]

The subjective does not overrule the objective. ALL people suffer and it is completely arbitrary to say this person’s suffering warrants killing to prevent it. There is the elephant in the living room that needs to be acknowledged–it is wrong to kill another human being who has done nothing to deserve it.

Scott

Being a member of the species Homo sapiens is not the equivalent of being a person as a person has subjective awareness. I do not think animals (excluding *Homo sapiens *which are animals BTW) have this characteristic, so I disagree with some of Singer’s work on animal rights. But wouldn’t aborting a disabled fetus prevent suffering when the fetus matures and becomes subjectively aware? Yes, the fetus is a human (as in *Homo sapiens *), but it is not a person.

 

[vz71]

Being a member of the species Homo sapiens is not the equivalent of being a person as a person has subjective awareness. I do not think animals (excluding *Homo sapiens *which are animals BTW) have this characteristic, so I disagree with some of Singer’s work on animal rights. But wouldn’t aborting a disabled fetus prevent suffering when the fetus matures and becomes subjectively aware? Yes, the fetus is a human (as in *Homo sapiens *), but it is not a person.

Your usage of ‘personhood’ to define wether or not a human being is worthy of life is wrong.

 

[Peter_Wright]

What exactly is it wrong to allow parents to have the choice to abort their baby with a hereditary disease? Wouldn’t that prevent human suffering in the world?

I do know what Catholicism teaches, but why does their teaching force one to live a life full of disadvantages? So how exactly is Singer’s choice not in the best interest of the baby? The baby cannot think, have desires for the future, etc. so it is not much of a person as one who is more mature. So how are we harming the baby if it could barely precieve pain?

I am not advocating this, but I think that under a secular morality system, this could be deemed as “morally acceptable.”

Personally, I find most forms of abortion grotesque, but this is my subjective opinion as a baby has the semblance of a human being. But, I do think it is “morally acceptable” to terminate a fetus that has a hereditary disease as this will prevent a life of suffering. They do not HAVE TO BE killed, but as I have said, it is morally acceptable.

I am going to personally and publically warn you that there are members within this forum who have children, and who have lost children, some quite recently, who find your comments regarding their flesh and blood to be the product of less than human thinking.

 

[Lischou]

What exactly is it wrong to allow parents to have the choice to abort their baby with a hereditary disease? Wouldn’t that prevent human suffering in the world?

I do know what Catholicism teaches, but why does their teaching force one to live a life full of disadvantages? So how exactly is Singer’s choice not in the best interest of the baby? The baby cannot think, have desires for the future, etc. so it is not much of a person as one who is more mature. So how are we harming the baby if it could barely precieve pain?

I am not advocating this, but I think that under a secular morality system, this could be deemed as “morally acceptable.”

Personally, I find most forms of abortion grotesque, but this is my subjective opinion as a baby has the semblance of a human being. But, I do think it is “morally acceptable” to terminate a fetus that has a hereditary disease as this will prevent a life of suffering. They do not HAVE TO BE killed, but as I have said, it is morally acceptable.

It appears that many others have given you excellent answers to which I will only add…ditto!

Much of your opinion on what a child in the womb experiences (or a newborn) is strictly speaking from a theoretical point of view. None of which has been proven one way or the other, nor is it ever likely to be. You, however, have chosen the less humane path in addressing this topic. Perhaps some of the hardness of heart that you suffer from is a direct result of years of being exposed to a society that feels no remorse over killing unborn children. Very sad.

With much prayer,
Lisa

 

[Liberalsaved]

What exactly is it wrong to allow parents to have the choice to abort their baby with a hereditary disease? Wouldn’t that prevent human suffering in the world?

I do know what Catholicism teaches, but why does their teaching force one to live a life full of disadvantages? So how exactly is Singer’s choice not in the best interest of the baby? The baby cannot think, have desires for the future, etc. so it is not much of a person as one who is more mature. So how are we harming the baby if it could barely precieve pain?

I am not advocating this, but I think that under a secular morality system, this could be deemed as “morally acceptable.”

Personally, I find most forms of abortion grotesque, but this is my subjective opinion as a baby has the semblance of a human being. But, I do think it is “morally acceptable” to terminate a fetus that has a hereditary disease as this will prevent a life of suffering. They do not HAVE TO BE killed, but as I have said, it is morally acceptable.

An interesting item for debate. I personally don’t think it’s a good reason, but it could open up the debating for some potential other good things. Makes me wonder; in the future, will we be able to correct birth defects prior to birth without harming either mother or child? Certainly this has some Aryan connotations, but then again, the prospect of preventing that suffering and still allowing the child to be born is thrilling! I would in fact be shocked if such possibilities had not already been discussed by those far more knowledgeable than myself. I don’t think discussing the the possibilites and moralities of the situation is less than human at all.

 

[Lischou]

An interesting item for debate. I personally don’t think it’s a good reason, but it could open up the debating for some potential other good things. Makes me wonder; in the future, will we be able to correct birth defects prior to birth without harming either mother or child? Certainly this has some Aryan connotations, but then again, the prospect of preventing that suffering and still allowing the child to be born is thrilling! I would in fact be shocked if such possibilities had not already been discussed by those far more knowledgeable than myself. I don’t think discussing the the possibilites and moralities of the situation is less than human at all.

When one discusses human life (especially innocent human life) like one would discuss a commodity, it is indeed not humane.

Lisa

 

[vz71]

An interesting item for debate. I personally don’t think it’s a good reason, but it could open up the debating for some potential other good things. Makes me wonder; in the future, will we be able to correct birth defects prior to birth without harming either mother or child? Certainly this has some Aryan connotations, but then again, the prospect of preventing that suffering and still allowing the child to be born is thrilling! I would in fact be shocked if such possibilities had not already been discussed by those far more knowledgeable than myself. I don’t think discussing the the possibilites and moralities of the situation is less than human at all.

Don’t we already have medical procedures to correct some defects?
I thought we did. I remember it from an article I read about last year. Apparently the doctor could operate on the unborn child. In this instance there was a rather famous photo taken in which it appears the child grabed the doctor’s finger.