What do Pro-choicers think about Peter Singer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gabriel_Gale
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gabriel_Gale

Guest
What do pro-choicers think about the philosopher Peter Singer. In debates over abortion, euthanasia, etc…, those who are pro-life usually refer to several intellectual sources. It seems that religious pro-choicers are disconnected from the intellectual leaders of the pro-choice movement.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33531

A controversial professor who advocates killing the disabled up to 28 days after birth, has been honored with an international ethics award.

Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University, has been given the 2003 World Technology Award for Ethics by the World Technology Network.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/hentoff091399.asp

From “Practical Ethics”: “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” But animals are self-aware, and therefore, “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”
 
I guess there are no pro choicers here. 🙂 I can tell you that he seems to be highly respected by Wisconsin Public Radio. They are pro-choice and have had him on many times. That is where I learned of him. I heard an interview where he was being asked about how GWB is being immoral. What struck me was that his logic was ridiculously flawed. For example, prior to the recession, GWB said tax cuts should be made because “it’s your money” (referring to the projected surplus). But when the surplus projections evaporated W changed his reason to: “Tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy”. That’s it! No other arguments! The reason changed and that is immoral!? It doesn’t take a college grad to see the errors. I just shook my head and hoped my children would never have to suffer such a teacher.

Then, I learned about his other moral positions some of which you pointed out. Actually, I find the logic better with this stuff. It actually seems to me that if you start with the premise that there is no God, this is what logically follows. However, I would go even further and say that it leads to us being our own god. We have to live with consequences of our actions (until we figure out ways to eliminate those consequences (like abortion) that is), but if there are no physical consequences (you are not stopped by society and its penalties and consequences) then anything goes. It becomes a big trade off a question of what are chances of getting caught?, what would be the likely punishment by society? And, without God, all society really needs to do is protect those (of us of course) with power and property. The rest are just glorified (or not) animals.
Although he won’t admit it I think he has taken the next step. I think this guy is really in need of our prayers.
Jim
 
Pro-choicers don’t like Peter Singer because he freely admits the logical conclusion of their position, which is something they are not willing to reconcile with, at least not publically.

JamesD, I haven’t read a lot of Singer or heard him much, but what I have heard I respect. NOT because I agree with him (although he has a very interesting and challenging position on poverty) but because he is very consistent. He is double minded about such things. He is willing to accept the logical conclusions to the premise “There is no God”.
 
Peter Singer has one thing going for him: he is being logically consistent.
 
Benedictus, Prometheum_X,

I am very surprised and interested that you both seem to respect his logic. I have read almost none of his writing. I have really only heard one interview with him regarding his book on the ethics of GWB. Again, my strong reaction was that this guy is using really bad logic. Perhaps it was the interview that was the problem. Perhaps its me.
Are you guys making general statements about the logic of his conclusions regarding life issues based on his premis of atheism? Or, on detailed step by step outlines of reasoning? I am very interested. I might consider reading some of his work if I am mistaken about his logic. (I don’t wish to damage my arguments by seeming to be reactionary when refering to Peter Singer).

Thanks,
Jim
 
40.png
JamesD:
Benedictus, Prometheum_X,

I am very surprised and interested that you both seem to respect his logic. I have read almost none of his writing. I have really only heard one interview with him regarding his book on the ethics of GWB. Again, my strong reaction was that this guy is using really bad logic. Perhaps it was the interview that was the problem. Perhaps its me.
Are you guys making general statements about the logic of his conclusions regarding life issues based on his premis of atheism? Or, on detailed step by step outlines of reasoning? I am very interested. I might consider reading some of his work if I am mistaken about his logic. (I don’t wish to damage my arguments by seeming to be reactionary when refering to Peter Singer).

Thanks,
Jim
Click to expand...
I haven’t much of his writing, but I do know that his willingness to kill already born babies stems from his logic that if it’s allright to kill babies a minute before birth, then it must be allright to kill them afterwards. So on this he would seem to be consistent.
 
Singer is ‘consistent’ in his logic, in that he takes the pro-choice position to its logical conclusion, which other pro-choicers are not likely to do because of the unsettling consequeces:

After all, if conception–the actual beginning of a new human being–is not a determining factor, neither is birth. The child is still not ‘viable.’ It can’t live independently of its parents. So he proposes that the child not be construed as a ‘person’ with legal rights until up to a month after birth. This would give the parents and physicians additional time to decide whether or not the child will continue to live.

Of course, the same argument can be applied to old age: if personhood can be granted by the law, it can also be taken away. It can be applied as well to the disabled, who have adamantly opposed Singer at some of his appearances. Because although he has not made that connection explicit, they have, and they realize that his philosophy is a threat to their very lives.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
JamesD, I haven’t read a lot of Singer or heard him much, but what I have heard I respect. NOT because I agree with him (although he has a very interesting and challenging position on poverty) but because he is very consistent. He is double minded about such things. He is willing to accept the logical conclusions to the premise “There is no God”.
Click to expand...
If he’s so consistent about abortion and babies being “self-aware,” why did he hire 24 hour care for his mother who is in the end-stages of Alzheimers?

reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml

Even without this, being consistent in evil is evilly consistent.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
JamesD, I haven’t read a lot of Singer or heard him much, but what I have heard I respect. NOT because I agree with him (although he has a very interesting and challenging position on poverty) but because he is very consistent. He is double minded about such things. He is willing to accept the logical conclusions to the premise “There is no God”.
Click to expand...
If he’s so consistent about abortion and babies being “self-aware,” why did he hire 24 hour care for his mother who is in the end-stages of Alzheimers?

reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml

Even without this, being consistent in evil is evilly consistent.
 
40.png
Prometheum_x:
JamesD, I haven’t read a lot of Singer or heard him much, but what I have heard I respect. NOT because I agree with him (although he has a very interesting and challenging position on poverty) but because he is very consistent. He is double minded about such things. He is willing to accept the logical conclusions to the premise “There is no God”.
Click to expand...
If he’s so consistent about abortion and babies being “self-aware,” why did he hire 24 hour care for his mother who is in the end-stages of Alzheimers?

reason.com/0012/rb.the.shtml

Even without this, being consistent in evil is evilly consistent.
 
40.png
JamesD:
Benedictus, Prometheum_X,

I am very surprised and interested that you both seem to respect his logic. I have read almost none of his writing. I have really only heard one interview with him regarding his book on the ethics of GWB. Again, my strong reaction was that this guy is using really bad logic. Perhaps it was the interview that was the problem. Perhaps I am mistaken about his logic. (I don’t wish to damage my arguments by seeming to be reactionary when refering to Peter Singer).

Thanks,
Jim
Click to expand...
Last night I attended a lecture by a well respected professor who heads the center for ethics and culture at a major catholic university.

In his lecture and included in the handout was a quote from Peter Singer (as an example of the threat of secularization to the liberal democratic culture). He made a comment that “Peter Singer is smarter than me or anyone else in this room”.

To make it clear he was not advocating any conclusions Singer comes to, but I do not believe that he would reference Singer (and praise his intellegence) if Singer is a hack.

I guess my question was answered.:o
 
Does this guy–or anyone who agrees with him–ever look at babies, or does he just avoid seeing them? I mean, think about when you’re handed an infant, the care you take in not letting its head fall back and making sure it is warm enough. Think about how the last thing you would want to do is cause this tiny, fragile, vulnerable human being any harm or even discomfort. Now think about killing it. Wow. One must have the art of rationalization very well mastered to do that. They must be very numb to their own sins. I’m sure it’s easier when the baby just looks like a mass of tissue, and if we are to really look at the logic of pro-abortionists who disagree with this man, it seems to come down to whether the baby looks like a human or not. Well, I for one enjoy logic, but I also enjoy truth. Pray for all of those involved in the culture of death.
 
I guess I am Pro-Choice - as long as the woman is given a TRUE choice and one of those choices is to not have an abortion. Ok, ok, I am playing semantics but I think the Catholic like myself know what I mean.

I have just finished reading some articles on Singer. To me, this is a man who has thought his way into justification on every level - and in doing so has lost the essential part of humanity. I admire philosophers - even those I do not agree with - but this man (in my mind) is not a philosopher but an advocate of deviance.

There is a great book - and of course I cannot remember the author’s name - to read about this phenomenon. It is “The Politics of Deviancy”. The author is a woman professor at UC San Diego who was able to get this book published and not lose her job despite her support of society’s right and obligation to decide that there are behaviors and beliefs that are outside the norm, deviant and therefore harmful. She describes Singer as a “well-mannered example of deviant behavior”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top