Peter Singer Defends His Views on Killing Disabled Babies Via Infanticide

LifeNews.com ^ | September 12, 2006 | Steven Ertelt

[Bill_o'Rights]

Princeton University philosophy professor Peter Singer came under international condemnation when he announced he favors killing disabled babies via infanticide. Though he was blasted from both sides of the political spectrum, the so-called ethicist still holds to the position.

In an interview with The Independent newspaper in England, Singer said he would definitely kill a disabled newborn baby.

He indicated he would do so "if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."

Singer said he found it surprising that abortion advocates would disagree with his views.

"Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion," Singer said.

...

However, Singer's view is that, instead of legal protection, both disabled babies and the unborn deserve death.

As he wrote in Rethinking Life and Death, "Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus."

Read full article

[Bill_o'Rights]

"Many people find this [Infanticide] shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion"
He does have a point.

I wonder if his mother is suing the doctor who delivered him for wrongful life? </sarcasm>

[MAD-AS-HELL]

His take on this is sort of moot since most who don't want a deformed or retarded baby would abort it before it came to term.

I still say let the left have abortions all they want. Less liberals in the world will result.

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

No comment.

[frogjerk]

I still say let the left have abortions all they want. Less liberals in the world will result.

Babies are neither conservative nor liberal.

[frogjerk]

He indicated he would do so "if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."

And the left says: "You know...that argument makes a lot of sense..."

[Huntress]

Peter Singer is a ghoul.

[varyouga]

The cheapening of life continues. One day, we'll be able to euthanize our (born) kids and elders if they are an 'inconvenience' or we 'can't afford them'.

[MAD-AS-HELL]

no but the chances they will be if with left wing nuts is pretty high.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Opinion:

---

That is a pretty cruddy attitude. Abortion is murder. Babies should not be slaughtered any more than you should go out into the street and shoot a bunch of liberals. Furthermore, having liberal parents does not make one a liberal.

[operation clinton cleanup]

He indicated he would do so "if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."

If the baby was killed, it would not be in the best interest of the baby and there would technically not be a family if there was no baby.

[muawiyah]

How about euthenasia for redundant professors?

[JimSEA]

Mongol women would have their children by themselves and inspect the child for imperfections. If the child was perfect, it would be admitted to the tribe, if not the mother would kill it. This was up until the Middle Ages and is not the practice today that most Mongols are Buddhist and have more value for all life.

Singer would take up back to savagery.

[pcottraux]

Peter Singer Defends His Views on Killing Disabled Babies Via Infanticide

Well, I'm glad he cleared that up.

[MAD-AS-HELL]

I agree but why take the chance. Let the libs kill their own and prove just how stupid they are. In time, abortion will wane because people will realize they are kiling off their own. It's just like the selective abortion policy in china and india. They are stopping it because of the imbalance of males to females.

[Alberta's Child]

Funny you should mention that. Singer has long been a strong advocate of euthanizing the elderly and infirm, too.

Ironically, this actually cost him a lot of friends in that movement. He pretty much exposed himself as a fraud when someone found out how much money it was costing (the taxpayers as well as him personally) to keep his own frail mother alive in an assisted living facility. I suspect this was the main reason why he'd been out of the news for so long that I began to wonder if he was still alive.

[varyouga]

"I still say let the left have abortions all they want. Less liberals in the world will result."

Not true. Some of the hardest conservatives I know have lib parents.

Also, my parents are conservatives but I started out as a Lib. A kid is unique and 'chooses' his/her own path.

[lawnguy]

It occurs to me that this idiot really likes attention, and to paraphrase PJ O'Rourke:

Singer wants to be weird to attract attention to himself, the problem is, academic morons have already used up all the weird.

[Onelifetogive]

Singer said he found it surprising that abortion advocates would disagree with his views.

He is lying. Abortion advocates are not consistent on this point, but NOBODY is suprised by their inconsistency. If they were consistent, they'd NEVER be allowed to murder fetuses....

[Socratic]

As he wrote in Rethinking Life and Death, "Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons.

Oh man, every time I fall asleep, I enter into this nonperson state. Just remember kiddies, it's not murder if you drug grandma first.

[Free Vulcan]

"Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus."

That applies to all babies, disabled or not. By his logic any baby could be killed at will up to say, age two, when babies start becoming self aware.

I just wonder upon what authority does he define self-awareness the requirement for protection. Seems more like religious dogma than argument. Someone call the ACLU.