"The best-known proponent of such views is Peter Singer. He is world famous (or infamous) for advocating that parents should have a period of time to decide whether to keep or kill their newborn infants. His support for infanticide is founded on personhood theory. Since infants aren't persons, he believes, they are "replaceable" -- and hence killable -- like all other "non self-conscious animals." Thus, he has written, in "Practical Ethics": "Since neither a newborn infant nor a fish is a person, the wrongness of killing such beings is not as great as the wrongness of killing a person."
Let's see now. Singer would have us weigh the total amount of happiness that each potential life could have in determining its worth.
I wonder what the total amount of happiness of all the babies he would have us kill is compared to, let's say, the amount of happiness in HIS life. Perhaps we could have Judge Greer make an evaluation of Singer's "Happiness Quotient" and determine if he was using up too much of the air, food and water that could be sustaining younger and more promising individuals.
Sorry Pete, you're just not happy enough.....this won't hurt a bit.....you might feel a sense of euphoria.....
SORRY! I meant to attach this quote to the last post:
"When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if the killing of the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others it would be right to kill him."