Posted on 12/02/2005 2:41:36 PM PST by wagglebee
PRINCETON, December 2, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Infamous advocate of infanticide and the man often credited as the founder of the modern radical animal rights movement, Dr. Peter Singer, was featured in the National Post this week predicting that the traditional ethics of western civilization would shortly be abolished. Singer?s comments appeared first in the September/October edition of the journal Foreign Policy as a speculation on what cherished social institutions would still exist in 35 years.
Singer, a strict utilitarian and the man the New York Times called the ?greatest living philosopher,? says, ?By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct.?
The title, ?The Sanctity of Life,? can only be meant as ironic coming from a man who has made his fame advocating abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, infanticide up to thirty days after birth and euthanasia for the elderly and infirm.
Singer?s predictions, shocking as they may appear, are well on the way to fruition, however. With the advance of utilitarian philosophy at both ends of human life, first with abortion, then with cloning, IVF, and growing rates of infanticide, and then with the acceptance of euthanasia, Singer has merely given an approving nod to what is verifiably happening all over the world.
He predicts bluntly, ?During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments.?
What Singer refuses to acknowledge is that there is no unavoidable necessity for this collapse. In fact most of it is being forced on nations by activist judges, undemocratic government and other organization actions and ruthless elites, who have constantly distorted facts to suit their agendas.
Technology has been developing since the emergence of organized human culture. In all that time, however, it is not until our own epoch that the suicidal anti-human philosophy has been so broadly accepted. In no other time before the modern age, has it been seriously proposed that the development of technology must necessarily supercede the inherent value of human life.
Ironically, as the implementation of Singer?s philosophical imperatives of drastic population reduction, mass euthanasia programmes, abortion and infanticide advance, the logical outcome will be that only those ?know-nothing religious fundamentalists? he excoriates will survive the anti-human pogroms.
Read the full article:
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200509--.htm
This is the "bioethicist" who has argued it is morally OK, if not preferable, to kill disabled infants who are less human than others of us, also OK to euthanize the elderly and infirm who waste our medical resources.
Oh yes, and Pete Singer has also written that it is OK to have sex with animals (a chicken) as long as you don't hurt them. Somehow I can envision Pete as not hurting the chicken...
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/society/bestial_ballad.htm
Biodeathicist Singer pinger...
Or the enslavement of Africans, for that matter? Or Stalin's "few broken eggs?"
Answer: There is no difference. Singer's philosophy boils down to a simple statement that there are no "unalienable rights" to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
His is a philosophy of might makes right. He's evil.
let's all pray that this guy doesn't have any kids. I don't even want to know what he would tell them about their "worth".
Here is what Singer was saying a month ago:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700324/posts
Old article by babbling old fart rapidly approaching the status of a "useless eater."
The fact is, by 2040, liberals like Singer will have contracepted, aborted, euthanized, and queered themselves into extinction, and the "hard-core religious fundamentalists" will be the majority.
Here's a newer article if you want a reminder that the evils of eugenics are alive and well in the world today:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700324/posts
""We will understand that even if the life of a human organism begins at conception, the life of a person—that is, at a minimum, a being with some level of self-awareness—does not begin so early. And we will respect the right of autonomous, competent people to choose when to live and when to die." - Peter Singer"
Pragmatically, as an individual judgment, that option has always been available; any attempt to justify the extension of its application to another's life simply because of expediency apart from order is more philosophical than a blueprint for social evolution.
We might see a move to engineering a higher quality of life for those facing advanced age as opposed to our current quantity of life approach, but even that will likely meet with considerable resistance from those who value tradition over advertised progress.
Too many of the population control crowd are missing the developing trend of families to have fewer children with each generation until now we have many developed countries growing more from immigration than birth addition.
Ultimately, there may come a time when pleasure is seen as the highest global goal but it will likely be farther in the future than a mere generation.
What the taster is to the king's stomach, the bioethicist is to the tyrant's conscience.
Bad ideas make cats look like fruit flies in time.
There's hardly any difference between the Nazis and today's left anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.