'Bioethicist': OK to Kill Babies after They're Born

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | September 14, 2006 | WorldNetDaily.com staff

[drpix]

Especially relevant to a hot button topic on FR:

'...Singer said that the court-ordered circumstances that killed Terry Schiavo, a disabled Florida woman, in 2005 may be the turning point at which holding the position of the sanctity of life became "untenable."'

[DungeonMaster]

How about killing off a race of people if they just aren't quite making it competitively.

[Kozak]

Slippin and sliding down that slope....

[LonePalm]

Would it be all right to kill off idiot professors if it was in the "best interests" of the family of man?

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[OldFriend]

No doubt in my mind that he wouldn't consider it quite right if we killed the terrorists we have at Gitmo.

[Recon Dad]

Very, very Swiftonian! Why stop there prof, when your kid comes home with that first report card that's the time to make that decision for the best interests of the family.

What a putz.

[drpix]

My bet is the "Professor" is a globalist and would believe the greater good - to the world as a whole - would be served by killing their American guards and saving the terrorist.

[GOP_Party_Animal]

This professor is absolutely right. I also see no distinction between killing a newborn and "terminating" a pregnancy through abortion.

Oh, wait a minute... he thinks they're both okay. Nevermind.

[North Coast Conservative]

Is this news? Or is it memorex?

Don't get me wrong. Peter Singer is up there on my list of candidates for post partum abortion.

I love conspiracy theories. Did The Independent run this Q&A article now because it is particularly relevant today? Or was this resurrected because it will be publicized by WND and enrage, engage, energize the conservative American base who will then turn out to re-elect a wishy-washy Republican majority in the US Congress.

I can see why they, (whoever THEY are), want Tony Blair to step down. He is much too influential in American politics. I am beginning to see it.

See You at BootMurtha!

Need a ride? FReepmail me, we will see what we can do

In God We Trust…..Semper Fi

[drpix]

"Is this news? Or is it memorex?... Did The Independent run this Q&A article now because it is particularly relevant today? Or was this resurrected...?"

?????
Are you saying this interview is an old one? Since WND's source article in The Independent seems to be subscriber only, I can't tell.

[Tom Bombadil]

says he'd kill disabled babies if it were in the "best interests" of the family, because he sees no distinction in the child's life whether it is born or not, and the world already allows abortion.

Close to 18 years ago I checked out 3 or 4 books from the University of Maine library on bioethics. All of them viewed abortion as normal from a species point of view, and a couple of them saw nothing wrong with killing infants who were not yet totally "sentient".

Nothing new here.

[kcrackel]

Dean Koontz wrote an excellent book about Bioethicists called "One Door Away From Heaven". Dean Koontz is a pretty conservative writer and has actually donated to the Bush campaign in the past. I love all his books.

[Lazamataz]

Yeah, let's just club 'em like baby seals.

Jeeeez.

[drpix]

In the world of ideas, there's probably nothing new under the sun. But... I can't be alone in believing that the spread of particular ideas through a culture/society should should be news - particularly when they are as radical as this one

[BamaAndy]

He's one of my favorites too--glad to hear he's a conservative. This idiot professor (there seem to be many) must be nazi oriented. Thank God he has no power.

[kidao35]

Isn't it amazing to watch the "Progressive Left" continue to take their talking points from the Nazis? Murdering the disabled, anti-Semitism, fascination with Islam and paganism, gun control, the list goes on and on.

[steadfastconservative]

Singer holds this position because he wrongly believes that an individual's "personhood" does not depend on his biological existence as a human being but, rather, on his having a certain level of mental functioning. Of course, if one accepts Singer's premise, then there is no objective way of determining who is and who is not a person. Furthermore, Singer's premise is both unproven and fallacious. It makes no sense to make "persons" and "human beings" separate categories. But that is what Singer does, which allows him to come up with the ridiculous conclusion that an unborn baby or a person in a coma is not a person but dogs and pigs are.

[sgtbono2002]

You beat me to it, I see no difference either , only I call it murder.

[Cheburashka]

This professor is absolutely right. I also see no distinction between killing a newborn and "terminating" a pregnancy through abortion.

Oh, wait a minute... he thinks they're both okay. Nevermind.
---
No, it's not a nevermind. Over and above the concept of murdering in the womb, this was always the next step after abortion was normalized. Euthanizing the "unfit to live", those "better off dead".

Then onward to who's going to be defining "unfit to live" and "better off dead". This SOB expects to be writing the definition. I don't like his concept, and I suspect I will like his definition even less.

The 20th Century had way too many examples of types of people who want to be in charge of writing those definitions.

I think you know that as well as I do,

[boughtwithaprice]

if it were in the "best interests" of the family

What a sad day when "best interests" are valued over human life.