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

Skip to comments.

Peter Singer Defends His Views on Killing Disabled Babies Via Infanticide
LifeNews.com ^ | September 12, 2006 | Steven Ertelt

Posted on 09/13/2006 8:06:03 PM PDT by 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

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: abortion; disabledbabies; infanticide; petersinger
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: lawnguy
...academic morons have already used up all the weird

don't worry, they'll make more

21 posted on 09/13/2006 8:20:50 PM PDT by disclaimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights

"One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby," Singer explained. However, Singer's view is that, instead of legal protection, both disabled babies and the unborn deserve death."

This is just mind-boggling.


22 posted on 09/13/2006 8:21:40 PM PDT by varyouga (I no longer fear death. I only fear the day when the DUmmies take over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights

Sure, it's all about "academic freedom". Of course, this guy would've been fired faster than you could say Jack Robinson if he'd advocated low taxes and concealed gun carry.


23 posted on 09/13/2006 8:23:16 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity ("A litany of complaints is not a plan." - GW Bush, referring to DNC's lack of a platform on ANYTHING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
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 didn't know this. Well, there are exceptions to every rule for liberals.

24 posted on 09/13/2006 8:23:25 PM PDT by disclaimer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights

Peter Singer is a sick individual!


25 posted on 09/13/2006 8:26:58 PM PDT by tapatio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights

Somehow Pete will determine whose life has value to society
and whose doesnt he is in fine company with fellows like
A. Hitler, Mao, Saddam H.
No longer do I just disagree with the left I consider them
a dangerous cult waiting to rise to power and set up their
own version of death camps, most likely allied with the Islamo-nazis.


26 posted on 09/13/2006 8:26:59 PM PDT by claptrap (optional tag-line under reconsideration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: operation clinton cleanup

Well, technically, if there were a previous child, it'd still be a family, (and I like to think of a married couple as a family), but it wouldn't be a "family as a whole" as Singer terms it, instead it'd be a "family with a part brutally murdered."


27 posted on 09/13/2006 8:28:06 PM PDT by stands2reason (ANAGRAM for the day: Socialist twaddle == Tact is disallowed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights

Peter Singer is cold and distant, I would suspect Satan has him in his icy grip. I hope one day God will show him the way.


28 posted on 09/13/2006 8:30:13 PM PDT by Xenophon450 ("Study the past, if you would divine the future." - Confucius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL
I still say let the left have abortions all they want. Less liberals in the world will result.

That's the secret that some libs don't want out, you see certain race demographics have more abortions than others. As we all know, the left is not blind to race as the claim, it's quite the opposite.

29 posted on 09/13/2006 8:30:53 PM PDT by Bill_o'Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk

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

OK what makes someone think that they know the answer to this. Not even the parents can always know what the worth of the child may be at the moment they try to make such a decision. This (The death of the child) may be later found to be the wrong decision if the child is allowed to live and grow. You would have to be pretty arrogant to believe you can know the answer to such a question.


30 posted on 09/13/2006 8:31:21 PM PDT by Khepera (Do not remove by penalty of law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights

What a cold heartless ba$tard.


31 posted on 09/13/2006 8:31:56 PM PDT by Dustbunny (The BIBLE - Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights

this guy teaches at a "prestigious" university-i think he's involved in animal rights,although maybe it's just another person with the same name-maybe we should consider aborting useless professors....hmmm??


32 posted on 09/13/2006 8:35:26 PM PDT by steamroller
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: disclaimer

It's not so much that there are exceptions. It's a matter of this guy being nothing more than a doofus in academia who claims to be an expert in his ivory tower but only because he never actually has to go out an apply his ethical agenda in the real world.


33 posted on 09/13/2006 8:35:54 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: MAD-AS-HELL
I still say let the left have abortions all they want. Less liberals in the world will result.

Why not just kill all the liberal adults too while we're at it? It's the same thing.

34 posted on 09/13/2006 8:37:47 PM PDT by xjcsa (The internet is not a truck. It's a series of tubes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights

..he would definitely kill a disabled newborn baby.

OK. Would disabled include a mouth like yours perfesser?

Maybe similar eyes?

Goodnight perfesser.


35 posted on 09/13/2006 8:38:35 PM PDT by petertare (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dustbunny
What a cold heartless ba$tard.


Peter Singer

36 posted on 09/13/2006 8:41:05 PM PDT by Bill_o'Rights
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
Babies are neither conservative nor liberal.

Tell that to their liberal parents that see no problem with aborting them.

Conservative families are busy creating more voters.

37 posted on 09/13/2006 8:43:15 PM PDT by perfect stranger (Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass). "Getting bombed has always struck me as the better option.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xjcsa

Now yer talkin! How would we do it? Poison their foie gras and caviar? Even better, maybe we should force sterlize all registered democrats?????? /s


38 posted on 09/13/2006 8:43:15 PM PDT by MAD-AS-HELL (How to win over terrorist? KILL them with UNKINDNESS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights
From Peter Singer's "The Sanctity of Life":
http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200509--.htm

http://www.utilitarian.net/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.]

This guy is a nut-case and truly exemplifies the "unhinged" lunacy of the left.
39 posted on 09/13/2006 8:47:18 PM PDT by khnyny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bill_o'Rights

If Pete's parents had realized his brain was so disabled, they might have killed him as a baby.


40 posted on 09/13/2006 9:00:14 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 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