This is REALLY Distrubing... An All Time Low

  • Thread starter Thread starter RastaPasta
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m surprised that people are shocked. Peter Singer has been advocating these ideas for years now, and he has quite a following, especially in the academic community.
 
People like this guy just totally astound me. I guess this what logically follows when you are pro-abortion! :(:mad:
 
BlueEyedLady said:
I’m surprised that people are shocked. Peter Singer has been advocating these ideas for years now, and he has quite a following, especially in the academic community.
Click to expand...
Academia is highly over rated…:eek:
 
DaveBj said:
I hope it was an accident that you left out the sarcasm smiley.
Click to expand...
I think the quotes and … got the sarcasm across. It was really more of a morbid sarcasm so I think a smiley would be out of place.
 
I’m sure all the murderers who are in prison for killing babies would be really interested in this. And, I hate to say it, but that really is a lot of people. For whatever reason it is not uncommon for women with severe mental problems to murder their children. I mean, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of ppl in jail for infanticide.

But, if you’re for murder in the womb, why not murder outside the womb? What’s the difference? Who cares about human life? We should have the freedom to kill our young… what’s so unethical about that?

:sleep: These people’s consciences are sleeping on the job :sleep:
 
Semper_Zelare said:
I’m sure all the murderers who are in prison for killing babies would be really interested in this. And, I hate to say it, but that really is a lot of people. For whatever reason it is not uncommon for women with severe mental problems to murder their children. I mean, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of ppl in jail for infanticide.

But, if you’re for murder in the womb, why not murder outside the womb? What’s the difference? Who cares about human life? We should have the freedom to kill our young… what’s so unethical about that?

:sleep: These people’s consciences are sleeping on the job :sleep:
Click to expand...
No, they never got created. The sociopaths among us.
 
Nate13 said:
I think the quotes and … got the sarcasm across. It was really more of a morbid sarcasm so I think a smiley would be out of place.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. I had a really heated reply, but I wanted to check first.
 
Nate13 said:
Exactly person hood is a “matter of opinion”. You have no right to tell me when life “begins”…
Click to expand...
I know you meant this sarcastically but you raise the key question: what are the criteria of personhood? Modern philosophy equates “person” with “center of consciousness” or, more precisely, “self-consciousness”. It is this “move” that makes possible a Pete Singer.

Once you make “self-consciousness” the criterion of “personhood”, you can further specify that only those human beings who use personal pronouns (e.g., “I”, “you”, “we”) are “persons”.

Even this “criterion” could be narrowed to include only those “persons” who are behaving “rationally” according to the “norms of society” (as defined by the government).

I think this debacle can be avoided if we see “person” in terms of a relation that places a special demand on us. This relation is immediate and comes from a radical “outside” that transcends the government, etc.

I know this is an issue that is more appropriately addressed in the “philosophy” subforum but I couldn’t help responding to this thread.
 
If anyone wants to read the full paper, it’s here: jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full

Eye-opening. Notice also the politically correct feminist newspeak used, where the default pronoun for referring for someone of an unknown sex is “she.” But it’s a good read because it dismantles many of the lies of the pro-choice movement, such as the one that a foetus is not a human being.

Here are a few disturbing quotes:
Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’.
Click to expand...
So a foetus is not just a bunch of cells but a human being, then?
This means that many non-human animals and mentally retarded human individuals are persons
Click to expand...
Animals ARE persons, but a foetus and a newborn, whilst being human beings, are NOT persons?
Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.
Click to expand...
In such cases, we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.
Click to expand...
Also medical professionals have recognised the need for guidelines about cases in which death seems to be in the best interest of the child
Click to expand...
In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. **Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. **
Click to expand...
However, this consideration entails a much stronger idea than the one according to which severely handicapped children should be euthanised. If the death of a newborn is not wrongful to her on the grounds that she cannot have formed any aim that she is prevented from accomplishing, then it should also be permissible to practise an after-birth abortion on a healthy newborn too, given that she has not formed any aim yet.
Click to expand...
Why should we kill a healthy newborn when giving it up for adoption would not breach anyone’s right but possibly increase the happiness of people involved (adopters and adoptee)?
Click to expand...
Our reply is the following. read the paper in full to find out the perverse reasoning
Click to expand...
 
Holly3278 said:
People like this guy just totally astound me. I guess this what logically follows when you are pro-abortion! :(:mad:
Click to expand...
Exactly! In my opinion, there is no difference - killing a baby is the same whether in or out of the womb, which is why abortion needs to be illegal! Both are reprehensible acts and should be looked on as murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top