Oh? You mean they LIKE these things?
Posted on 05/15/2008 7:13:06 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
Peter Singer is a calm, lucid and able debater, and our debate at Biola University in Los Angeles on April 25 was lively and hard-fought. Not for nothing is Singer considered a world-class philosopher and advocate. To watch the debate go to dineshdsouza.com and click on my AOL blog.
Singer praised me for not simply making assertions of faith or hurling Bible passages at him but rather for using reason and argument to make my case . And I complimented Singer for stepping, so to speak, into the lion's den. (Biola actually stands for Bible Institute of Los Angeles.) Unlike the pusillanimous Richard Dawkins, who doesn't dare to debate me even at his home campus of Oxford, Singer was brave to come to a Christian campus to dispute the resolution "God: Yes or No." The audience of 3,000 was mostly though not exclusively Christian.
So perhaps atheism has found an able advocate. But unbelievers may want to think twice before lining up behind Singer, who argues in favor of infanticide, euthanasia and (this is not a joke) animal rights! One of Singer's interesting proposals concerns what may be called "fourth trimester" abortions, i.e. the right to kill one's offspring even after birth!
Here are some choice Singer quotations on the subject which I get from his books Rethinking Life and Death and Writings on an Ethical Life.
On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days: "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others."On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."
On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: "The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."
On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."
In my opening statement I showed the profound connection between Singer's Darwinian atheism and his advocacy of infanticide and euthanasia. Remarkably Singer responded by saying he didn't come to debate his bioethical views! Rather, he wanted the debate to focus exclusively on the question of whether God exists or not. I didn't want this to be a debate in which Singer and I ended up talking on completely different subjects, so I engaged him on his chosen ground.
Even so, I was disappointed that Singer wouldn't stand up for the opinions that have made him famous, or infamous. Our topic resolution was broad enough to permit a discussion both of the existence of God and also of the social implications of the theist and the atheist positions. I view Singer's work as exploring the consequences of living in a truly secular society, devoid not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality.
So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals. In the animal kingdom, after all, parents sometimes kill and even devour their offpsring. Singer argues that the West can learn from the other cultures like the Kalahari where children are routinely killed when they are unwanted, even when they are several years old.
Some of Singer's critics call him a Nazi and compare his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating the unwanted, the unfit and the disabled. But as I note in the debate, Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.
Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?
That's similar to J.B.S Haldane's views. Haldane was a Darwin Medalist, a member of the Eugenics Society, a 'useful idiot' for Stalin, shill for Lysenko, and the co-founder of the Modern Synthesis. He believed that 'useless eaters' should simply kill themselves.
Click here for more information on the world-view of Darwinians.
“In my opening statement I showed the profound connection between Singer’s Darwinian atheism and his advocacy of infanticide and euthanasia. Remarkably Singer responded by saying he didn’t come to debate his bioethical views!”
Of course he didn’t, but he shouldn’t have been allowed to seperate them like that.......because ultimately they are linked.
the heavens resound with belly-laughter.
Singer is an honest Athiest, he lives his belief and admits....no God....no morality. He and Nietsche are much alike.
He's never been around an infant nursing, or one with colic then.
I actually think it's a case of arrested development, where he just wants attention himself.
Cheers!
What is it with Creationists. This is a concept produced by Jews.
Oh? You mean they LIKE these things?
I have never seen any evidence that Darwin advocated infanticide and euthanasia. Comments in his work strongly suggest his revulsion at abortion.
Yes. We can learn that they are wrong.
I am anti-abortion, but I also doubt the existence of a God. Darwinism has no influence on agnosticism.
Where does that put me?
In that particular quote he was referencing a 3-month fetus, not a 3-month baby, and so was perhaps not completely inaccurate. Irrelevant observation, but not inaccurate.
The Romans had a Phrase Called “PATER FAMILIA” where the head of the Family decided if the Newborn was worthy of joining his clan... Today we have MATER FAMILIA only the Mother can choose..
Yes, we certainly have much to learn from such an advanced culture. Darwinian atheism is devolution.
Interestingly, this is a blast from the past.
Sparta was the only ancient state where the decision to raise or not raise a child was up to the State. Elsewhere it was handled exactly as Singer proposes, with the decision being made by the parents, or more precisely the adult male head of household. (Somehow the term "father" seems inappropriate.)
I was recently reading an article which wondered why the Roman Empire had no massive population explosion during the pax Romana. Universal peace, thriving economy, etc. Should have been an LOT of children born. The authors descended into an idiotic discussion of ancient contraception methods, without apparently being aware that in ancient times the birth rate was by no means always parallel to the population growth (or decline).
Christianity changed that, making infanticide for the first time in history a crime. Before then, the Jews were about the only people who raised all their children. Tourists regularly commented on it, as being such odd bizarre behavior.
I note that there are two distinct forms of atheist.
The noisy kind are attracted to every non-religious “-ism” in the book. Moral relativism, Darwinism (which is almost an oxymoron), socialism, communism, anarchism, etc. They are atheists *reliant* on religion the same way that Satanists are. Without religion they have no context.
The other kind of atheist, that generally never make an issue of the fact, are indifferent to religion. (Though if you mentioned this difference, the first group of atheists get extremely agitated, and insist that they are also indifferent to religion. They will scream at you about how indifferent they are.)
A healthy majority of the second group of atheists have no real ax to grind about God or gods, whoever. They are more inclined to reject religion instead, as being so hopelessly fouled up that its good ideas are buried under a pile of detritus. Often they are borderline agnostics, and are just as responsive to what they think of as truly spiritual as are the religious.
In some ways, the latter group of atheists are more religiously responsible than are people who call themselves religious yet regularly and grossly violate the tenets of their religion, such as very pro-abortion Catholics. At least they could be religious, and properly so, if they were persuaded by it.
Finally, many of this second group of atheists actually have a moral code. While it does not derive directly from religion, it runs parallel to it, so achieves many of the same ends.
Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."
Following this logic leads us to rationalizing cleansing society of those with mental or psychological defects. Specifically ones that cannot think cognitively (rationality), take care of themselves (autonomy) or various mental disorders (self-consciousness). He later broadens the argument by stating that killing infants is like killing abnormal humans; in both cases, he intimates, is less egregious.
I wonder what the IQ level is below which he would consider killing to not be murder.
Well, no, not actually if you know the origins of their mentors. Sanger comes to mind.
The characteristic which, fundamentally, really counts, that is, simply being human, does not figure at all in his thinking.
He believed that ‘useless eaters’ should simply kill themselves.”
Why didn’t he?
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.
