Oh? You mean they LIKE these things?
Posted on 05/15/2008 7:13:06 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
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.
