Princeton Bioethicist says only Know-Nothing Religious Fundamentalists will Value Human Life by 2040

LifeSiteNews ^ | 12/2/05 | Hilary White

[silverleaf]

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

[TheSarce]

Biodeathicist Singer pinger...

[r9etb]

How, if at all, does this differ from the justification the Nazis for the extermination of the untermunchen?

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.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri November Dailies

8mm

[Soothesayer]

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".

[reagan_fanatic]

Wrong - with ever increasing science and knowledge about the fetus and what actually happens in the womb, people will be MORE likely value and respect human life by then, not less.

Singer is full of sh*t.

[wagglebee]

Here is what Singer was saying a month ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1700324/posts

[Alouette]

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

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.

[wagglebee]

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

[Old Professer]

""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.

[Old Professer]

What the taster is to the king's stomach, the bioethicist is to the tyrant's conscience.

[Old Professer]

Bad ideas make cats look like fruit flies in time.

[darkangel82]

There's hardly any difference between the Nazis and today's left anyway.