Posted on 12/02/2005 6:21:53 PM PST by nickcarraway
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
hmmm, what do you know? A wack job at at university making doe off the tax payers.
Dr. Freud... white courtesy phone.
A real Michael Jackson fan...
Can we throw in a 'repeatedly' in there somewhere?
Yup. This is where I came in (1936). I have, indeed, heard it all before, and although I may suffer as much as anyone from the 'Observer Problem', it's not so much for me not know what's coming next.
The sophomoric utilitarian? This would be funny if it wasn't so frightening.
"the man the New York Times called the “greatest living philosopher,”
I keep reading by the evolutionists that "ID" should be taught in philosophy classes, I think I know why, as apparently this guy is what philosophy classes represent.
I'm going to assume that it was sarcasm.
I think we all know what happened. A certain constituency on here will see the "know-nothing religious fundamentalists" bit and feel obligated to defend the guy no matter what. Rhetoric like that makes them weak in the knees.
I wouldn't if I were you. Just a bit of friendly advice.
Yes, funny thing about that word fundamentalists it is not limited to a specific mindset.
Exactly right. It isn't used that way on here, however.
I tend to let it go, though. I figure that if it helps them with their problems, I just might be the thing that stops them from going nuts in the Post Office. If it makes them feel good to bring down others, so be it.
He has to be "a big advocate of bestiality" - otherwise he has not ancestors. :)
Thank you for your insights!
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.