Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

10 ideas on the way out By 2040, many things we take for granted will no longer exist
The Dallas Morning News ^ | 11-27-2005 | Various

Posted on 11/27/2005 10:56:54 AM PST by 1066AD

The sanctity of life

By Peter Singer

During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological and demographic developments. 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: 2040; cfr; chicom; china; communism; future; greenparty; healthcare; liberalism; life; newworldorder; nwo; petersinger; procreation; prolife; sovereignty; trends; un; unamerican
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last
To: 1066AD
I'm not going to bother to click the link to read the rest of this rubbish. The very first claim he makes is obviously false; more and more people are recognizing and acknowledging the sanctity of life from conception, precisely due to scientific advances.
61 posted on 11/27/2005 12:31:10 PM PST by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
If Americans elect Condi Rice or any other of the candidates proposed by the GOP or even the democratic party, then this will come to pass.

Tinfoil whacko nonsense.

62 posted on 11/27/2005 12:33:31 PM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD
Humans will more than likely be on the verge of extinction by 2040.
.
63 posted on 11/27/2005 12:35:59 PM PST by mugs99 (Don't take life too seriously, you won't get out alive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Peter Singer advocates killing babies up to a year old, if they have any physical defects.

Can't stand the man but, let's be honest here. Singer advocates killing babies up to one month old.

64 posted on 11/27/2005 12:37:48 PM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
As soon as I saw Peter Singer's name, I knew that this entire article is pure delusional BS without even reading it. Me too. I didn't bother reading it either.
65 posted on 11/27/2005 12:41:42 PM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD

Except for the Chicoms, I fully expect every one of those things to be around in 2040, assuming the Apocalypse hasn't come to pass. I think the Chinese political system, whether it's free or unfree, will have dropped even lip service to Communism at that point.


66 posted on 11/27/2005 12:44:28 PM PST by RichInOC (HU AND WEN: WAT YOU SAY!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68

OR the way they WISH is more like it.


67 posted on 11/27/2005 12:44:39 PM PST by cubreporter (I trust Rush. He's done more for our country than we will ever know. He's the man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
The world in 2040 will be semi-sovereign.

The thing about this is the same as for the Club of Rome. Their world is closed, that is, it is a system--pre-Copernican--planet earth by itself in the unimaginably huge universe that has no practical limits as far as the lifetime of our species is concerned. It takes no account of anything that might be developed off planet, off earth. They will do whatever, neglect whatever, to ensure their world remains closed.

68 posted on 11/27/2005 12:45:06 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ken522

A gem, now?


69 posted on 11/27/2005 12:46:58 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: It's me

Is that right? I read one year, but the information wasn't directly from Singer so it may have been wrong.


70 posted on 11/27/2005 12:47:14 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: It's me

I think you're wrong. I heard him interviewed and I'm sure he said up to a year.


71 posted on 11/27/2005 12:48:47 PM PST by Inkie (Surround Fallujia and start shooting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Could be why space exploration has pretty much stopped in the US.


72 posted on 11/27/2005 12:52:18 PM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tet68
I disagree. Some of them definitely will no longer exist.

Sanctity of life-- American conservatives have for several years been in the awkward position of defending a federal funding ban on creating new embryos for research that prevents U.S. scientists from leading an area of biomedical research that could revolutionize the treatment of many common diseases. When they are honest, conservatives acknowledge that giving up some medical advances is simply the price to be paid for doing the right thing. This is fast becoming an untenable position, especially with the advance of cloning technology.

I'm all for medical research, whatever sort private industry can support. As for federal funding of it, cut it off completely. Not from a moral standpoint as much as a fiscal standpoint. But leave it to Republicans, if they know of a way to waste money, they'll be at the forefront calling for it.

Political parties

Can anyone truly disagree the two parties aren't just different facets of the same party? They no longer argue over issues, but rather over the level of how much money they should waste.

Doctor's offices

Have you seen the bathroom accesories you can put in your own house now? The doctor can actually see your symptoms without you even having to leave your house.

Sovereignty

Well the national government destroyed that of the states already in our own nation. It's not such a big step to assume that our own leaders, Republican or Democrat, will gleefully hand it over one day

73 posted on 11/27/2005 12:55:46 PM PST by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness
I even had to beg my sister to vote for Bush last year by saying that women would still be able to go to Canada for abortions

Why would she have to go to Canada? Overturning Roe v Wade would simply return the issue to the individual states, where it should be.

The problem lies with too many people thinking that overturning Roe v Wade equates to making abortion illegal.

74 posted on 11/27/2005 12:55:57 PM PST by iowamomforfreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SE Mom

Most animal rights activists have a deep disdain for human beings.


75 posted on 11/27/2005 12:56:16 PM PST by girlangler (I'd rather be fishing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: gungafox
By that wondrous theory you've advocated -- You, yourself, have no right to life if it should make someone else's miserable. Say if you are ugly, those who want only beauty will be miserable: death to you. If you are pretty, those who envy your beauty are made miserable: death to you. If you are ordinary, those who want only the extraordinary will be made miserable: death to you.

Seems any way to look at that theory it is suicidal -- it can only be murder.

The Constitution does not proclaim a "right to happiness" -- only to the "pursuit of happiness". That means, in essence, that the Framers recognized that we are each and all always short of the mark, happiness-wise, thus that we will always have some misery and struggles, but that we have a right even a duty, perhaps, to pursue what happiness we can.

That's a social theory, btw, straight out of Genesis.

76 posted on 11/27/2005 12:57:00 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GermanBusiness
.........their overblown impression that overturning "Roe vs Wade" would be the end of civilization. I even had to beg my sister to vote for Bush last year by saying that women would still be able to go to Canada for abortions

The morality of abortion aside, Roe v. Wade is a travesty because it is nothing more than the unconstitutional amendment of the U.S. Constitution by judicial decree.

Once the judiciary can can simply invent what is in the Constitution just as the ancient priests of the Oracle of Delphi invented prophesy by pretending to "read" chicken entrails, then we live under the tyranny of a judicial oligarchy and no longer live in a constitutional republic.

If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned today, all it would mean is that the legal issues over abortion would be decided by each State without interference from the Federal Government as the U.S. Constitution clearly intended such issues to be decided as stated in the Tenth Amendment.

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Liberal Blue States would continue to have abortion as if nothing had happened.

If the liberals want to truly have a constitutional right to abortion enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, then they should get a constitutional amendment to that effect ratified.

77 posted on 11/27/2005 12:58:15 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
why space exploration has pretty much stopped in the US

It is the corporations that both provide for economic growth and limit economic growth. When private property rights are created in outer space, they will go to corporations only. Corporations are our modern slaves. Corporations are taken as legal persons by the Fourteenth Amendment, yet it is illegal to own persons; neverthless, the corporations are owned.

78 posted on 11/27/2005 12:58:41 PM PST by RightWhale (Repeal the law of the excluded middle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Alouette

Surely to folks like the mass-murderous Professor Singer "zionism" is a particular form of sovereignity, if not the most despised form of it.


79 posted on 11/27/2005 1:00:03 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD
Remember Peter Singer is a devout Marxist who should be ridiculed.
80 posted on 11/27/2005 1:00:30 PM PST by Exton1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-98 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson