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

Lisa
Click to expand...
I think you’re missing a central point, which is that (while I can’t speak for Ribozyne) if I didn’t care about the humanity of the child, I wouldn’t care to thinks about potential ways to aid them. Please consider what I am saying before rolling out the standard response given to extreme left-wing nutters.
 
vz71 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wow, I never heard of that. You have any links? Especially ones to the picture. Thanks in advance.
 
Peter_Wright said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are correct for criticizing me for a lack of tact, as I myself do not have children. I do think Professor Singer can say the same though as I do not think he has children. I am saying that I agree with Singer’s position currently (my position might change though), as I do wish that hereditary diseases and congenital disorders do not exist. I never said that those who are afflicted with a hereditary diseases are inferior. So I might be wrong saying that Singer’s preemptive approach to the problem is correct, but I am interested in the reasons that this is wrong under a secular moral system.

Just as a clarification, not a challenge, I am not arguing that such cases require the termination of human life. Such a position I think is untenable. I think we could all agree that if a cure for these ailments are available, it would be better to apply them than to terminate human life. But this is not the case though, which would obviously compound this ethical controversy. Hopefully, science will provide the need answers (as in cures) to questions of this nature. Of course, human life does have an inherent dignity as opposed to, let’s say, Drosophila melanogaster.
 
I am always suspicious of the real motivations of people that want to kill someone else to eliminate suffering.

Should we kill all the drug addicts because they suffer when they go cold turkey?
Should we kill all the poor people because they have a life of hardship?
Should we kill all the minorities because they still suffer the pains of racism?
Should we kill the very intelligent people to help them with their suffering for being around idiots?
 
vz71 said:
My google fu has become rather advanced of late.

Here you go…
nrlc.org/news/1999/NRL1299/surg.html
pagerealm.com/handhope/
family.org/fofmag/sl/a0024070.cfm
Click to expand...
Wow. So it’s already happening. Makes me wonder what the vision of the medical world will be like as I grow older, and gives me hope we’ll also solve birth-related issues like over-crowding and childhood disease, starvation and death.

Of course, I fear there will be enough people extreme enough to stand in the way of such advances on “ethical” grounds, and as a result the science won’t progress as fast as it could. 😦
 
Liberalsaved said:
I think you’re missing a central point, which is that (while I can’t speak for Ribozyne) if I didn’t care about the humanity of the child, I wouldn’t care to thinks about potential ways to aid them. Please consider what I am saying before rolling out the standard response given to extreme left-wing nutters.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the OP of Ribozyne (who has serious breaches of understanding in the relm of morality) that you responded to…to which your statement:

I don’t think discussing the the possibilites and moralities of the situation is less than human at all.

…is what I find less than humane. If you meant discussing strictly the healing of unborn children, then I misunderstood you and I apologize.

I am, however, glad to see that you care about the humanity of the child…that’s at least positive. 🙂

Lisa
 
Cristiano said:
I am always suspicious of the real motivations of people that want to kill someone else to eliminate suffering.

Should we kill all the drug addicts because they suffer when they go cold turkey?
Should we kill all the poor people because they have a life of hardship?
Should we kill all the minorities because they still suffer the pains of racism?
Should we kill the very intelligent people to help them with their suffering for being around idiots?
Click to expand...
Well, I have to be prudent now regarding my views on pro-life isssues. But I will say that regarding your first two questions, it is best to stop poverty and racism, for example, Singer donates 20% of his salary to Oxfam and Unicef. Regarding drugs, it is best to rehability them.

No, I am not advocating the notion that killing people is a panacea for suffering. Regarding cases like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, it is best no to involve any killing. These diseases can be easily avoided through genetic screening. It is not “morally acceptable” for two people who know they are both heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis allele to marry (and have children as they know their offspring would be at risk for cystic fibrosis. However, Down syndrome cannot be avoided this way because it is not a hereditary disease. Maybe suppresing expression of the undesirable genes in Down syndrome patients might led to a cure as they could live normals lives with an abnormal genotype. Besides curing these types of diseases, I do not know how exactly to cope with Down syndrome.
 
Lischou said:
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the OP of Ribozyne (who has serious breaches of understanding in the relm of morality) that you responded to…to which your statement:

I don’t think discussing the the possibilites and moralities of the situation is less than human at all.

…is what I find less than humane. If you meant discussing strictly the healing of unborn children, then I misunderstood you and I apologize.

I am, however, glad to see that you care about the humanity of the child…that’s at least positive. 🙂

Lisa
Click to expand...
I was actually referring to the very very broad spectrum of advances in pre-birth options, but I did, in the very first sentence of my reply, say I did not agree with Rib’s particular idea.

Edit: Second. Second sentence. Still early! Stop looking at me like that.
 
Lischou said:
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the OP of Ribozyne (who has serious breaches of understanding in the relm of morality) that you responded to…to which your statement:

I am, however, glad to see that you care about the humanity of the child…that’s at least positive. 🙂

Lisa
Click to expand...
I am just curious while I am asking this. Would you say that Singer has “serious breaches of understanding in the realm of morality.” I will not defend myself against that statement though, as I am not an ethicist (as I only read some of Singer’s columns in Free Inquiry) so obviously I am influenced by Peter Singer. I am sincerely sorry if the forum thinks my defense of Singer is calluous and I will be more considerate next time.
 
ribozyme said:
I am just curious while I am asking this. Would you say that Singer has “serious breaches of understanding in the realm of morality.” I will not defend myself against that statement though, as I am not an ethicist (as I only read some of Singer’s columns in Free Inquiry) so obviously I am influenced by Peter Singer. I am sincerely sorry if the forum thinks my defense of Singer is calluous and I will be more considerate next time.
Click to expand...
I consider your defense of Singer to be a hefty task.
He does have “serious breaches of understanding in the realm of morality.”
 
Liberalsaved said:
Wow. So it’s already happening. Makes me wonder what the vision of the medical world will be like as I grow older, and gives me hope we’ll also solve birth-related issues like over-crowding and childhood disease, starvation and death.

Of course, I fear there will be enough people extreme enough to stand in the way of such advances on “ethical” grounds, and as a result the science won’t progress as fast as it could. 😦
Click to expand...
I bolded the part that alarms me.
:eek:
Your kidding, right??
 
ribozyme said:
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.
Click to expand...
Where would you draw the line? My family has a genetic abnormality. We tend to have two toes that are webbed. Does that mean we should not have been allowed to live? After all it is genetic.

God is the only one to deside which pregnancy continues and which does not in my opinion.

My daughters third child was born without a brain only a brain stem. She held her child till he stopped breathing and went to be with the Lord. If you ask her she will tell you that Christopher was a blessing in her family’ life. God has a reason for each and every one of us to have been born. I wonder what we have missed as a country with all the lbabies we have denied that right to live.
 
Liberalsaved said:
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.
Click to expand...
What substantive difference is there between abortion and infanticide?

Kendy
 
KathleenElsie said:
Where would you draw the line? My family has a genetic abnormality. We tend to have two toes that are webbed. Does that mean we should not have been allowed to live? After all it is genetic.

God is the only one to deside which pregnancy continues and which does not in my opinion.

My daughters third child was born without a brain only a brain stem. She held her child till he stopped breathing and went to be with the Lord. If you ask her she will tell you that Christopher was a blessing in her family’ life. God has a reason for each and every one of us to have been born. I wonder what we have missed as a country with all the lbabies we have denied that right to live.
Click to expand...
I think it is prudent that I do not defend my views (if you would call them my views as I am an impressionable 16 year old who has obviously been influenced by Singer) here. Unfortunately, ethics is complex topic and issues cannot be easily resolved by mixing chemical A and chemical B in a tube, heating it, and analyzing the products using chromatography and NMR spectroscopy.

Well, regarding web toes, I consider that a minor inconvience, not something that has profound detrimental effect on human life.

How do you know that Christopher is a blessing to her family? I think he would be better off born with a brain, of course. I do not wish to offend you, but how is your perception of him being a blessing is objective (like those who are not color blind can easily distinguish between red and green), rather than a subjective perception? I am have a pessimistic view on life and I would not precieve such an event as a blessing. I am wonder what is wrong with my perception of such an event?
 
ribozyme said:
Well, I have to be prudent now regarding my views on pro-life isssues. But I will say that regarding your first two questions, it is best to stop poverty and racism, for example, Singer donates 20% of his salary to Oxfam and Unicef. Regarding drugs, it is best to rehability them.

No, I am not advocating the notion that killing people is a panacea for suffering. Regarding cases like cystic fibrosis or sickle cell anemia, it is best no to involve any killing. These diseases can be easily avoided through genetic screening. It is not “morally acceptable” for two people who know they are both heterozygous for the cystic fibrosis allele to marry (and have children as they know their offspring would be at risk for cystic fibrosis. However, Down syndrome cannot be avoided this way because it is not a hereditary disease. Maybe suppresing expression of the undesirable genes in Down syndrome patients might led to a cure as they could live normals lives with an abnormal genotype. Besides curing these types of diseases, I do not know how exactly to cope with Down syndrome.
Click to expand...
Is it your opinion that only “normals” have the right to live? Who would you give the responsibility of choosing what is “normal” or not? Who desides if someone lives or dies? Does money and the ability to care for the child make a difference?

I will pray for you while you think of the questions asked.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Is it your opinion that only “normals” have the right to live? Who would you give the responsibility of choosing what is “normal” or not? Who desides if someone lives or dies? Does money and the ability to care for the child make a difference?

I will pray for you while you think of the questions asked.
Click to expand...
I will reiterate that I do not think that babies, embryos, or fetuses MUST be killed if they possess a hereditary disease. I do think it should be up to the parents though.

I think you have misrepresented what I have meant in the my previous post. Obviously trisomy 21 is an abnormal genotype (i.e. a person afflicted has an extra chromosome (which makes 47) which would show up on a karyogram as most people have 46 chromosomes). The extra chromosome has profound phenotypic effects (e.g. mental retardation and a shortened life span). I meant that suppressing the expression of some genes would allow a person with Down syndrome to have a “normal” phenotype but still possess that abnormal genotype with three copies of the 21st chromosome. In other words, such a therapy would cure Down syndrome. T

Also, are you going to pray for Peter Singer too?
 
Liberalsaved said:
Wow. So it’s already happening. Makes me wonder what the vision of the medical world will be like as I grow older, and gives me hope we’ll also solve birth-related issues like over-crowding and childhood disease, starvation and death.

Of course, I fear there will be enough people extreme enough to stand in the way of such advances on “ethical” grounds, and as a result the science won’t progress as fast as it could. 😦
Click to expand...
LiberalSaved, I have read most of your most in the past nine months without commenting because they are so outside of the bounds of anything Catholic that I don’t even know where to begin.

However, I will comment now. I do not make these statements lightly; it is why I have refrained from commenting. Your post reveals much more confidence in the scientific powers of man than the grace, and mercy of God. You seem completely unable to recognize the imagine of God in human suffering, and can’t seem to imagine any good other than the misguided human good of making heaven on Earth through scientific progress.

I am usually willing to accept that everyone is going to have a few things that they struggle with when it comes to submitting to church teachings. However, on a matter of life, and the sanctity of a human child, the words, “Thou shall not kill” leave no room for compromise.

That and other things, forces me to ask on what basis to you consider yourself to be catholic? If you do not find truth and love and so many of the teachings of the church, why would you want to be a member? In fact, is there anything about Christian faith that you find worthy of your approval?

Kendy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top