Peter Singer doesn’t want tax dollars to pay for disabled babies

lifedynamics.com ^ | June 30, 2015 | Life Dynamics

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I don’t want tax dollars to pay for misanthrope perfessers.

[TangibleDisgust]

sick and evil.

this also highlights the problem with tenure.

[NorthMountain]

I don't want tax money paying for any babies. Where the heck is that in the Constitution?

[Jim from C-Town]

Will this idiot never die? He has been a rash on the inner thigh of humanity for decades. Will he not go already?

[Cboldt]

Singer, the ethicist, has been advocating infanticide for, oh, 20 or 30 years, maybe more.

SCOTUS will find a constitutional right to infanticide in the 14th amendment, where all the nifty rights seem to hide, soon enough.

[Secret Agent Man]

Pete needs to be the first to go. And everyone else who speaks like him. Shut this sh1thole way of thinking down real fast.

[Scrambler Bob]

Peter Singer’s brain is disabled.

Do what is necessary.

[Williams]

The left wants the old and weak to die, views them as an economic burden on society with no value. What does that tell you?

[Jim from C-Town]

Our society has always cared for those who could not care for themselves.

It has always been at the state level until well into the twentieth century. A state government has a responsibility to protect and provide for those unable to protect and provide for themselves. That includes the mentally retarded and mentally ill as well as the infirmed and disabled. Including babies.

[LearsFool]

Don’t doze off in the same room with this Singer creep. You might never wake up.

[Dalberg-Acton]

I was hoping someone would notice.

[Paine in the Neck]

Hasn’t Peter Singer hit Zeke Emmanuel’s age limit? Time to go, Peter.

[beethovenfan]

I’m an advocate for Singercide. This guy is a waste of skin and oxygen.

[NorthMountain]

Our society has always cared for those who could not care for themselves.

I agree. That's why I personally support, and have worked at (voluntary, no pay) entities dedicated to that purpose.

It has always been at the state level

And there it should remain, if and ONLY IF the people of the individual States authorize it in their respective State Constitutions. Elsewise, it belongs entirely to the private sector.

And my question remains unanswered. Where the heck is that in the Constitution?

You ALL know the answer: It's NOT THERE. The unconstitutional welfare state, started on "good intentions" is destroying this country. IT MUST END.

[faithhopecharity]

his positions are the antithesis of any recognizable ethics or morals

[cripplecreek]

Another proud liberal moment.

[Uncle Miltie]

SingEr should euthanize himself.

[Billthedrill]

That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do.

First time I've heard a hint of that from Singer, but then I haven't followed his ethical revelations closely for some time now. His case is that it is wrong because it gives pain to the parents. But I don't think that the premise that the child has no "sense of self over time" or willingness to avoid pain is scientifically defensible; rather the opposite, in fact. Ethical theories that divorced from evidence are little more than juggling of abstractions, fun, I suppose, if you've lost all the counters to your Parcheesi game but of not a great deal more use.

[Jim from C-Town]

Promote the general welfare. A phrase in the preamble that the Leftists have been able to drive a train load of programs through.

I am relatively certain that if programs where in place to help the truly needy and only those who are truly needy, few would object to them. It is the fact that so many programs exist that are loaded with people who are not disabled or infirmed. They are simply useless people who do little for society. That is the problem. Not the sick. Not the disabled.

As for ending, it won't until it must and that is what Greece is facing now.