Posted on 10/07/2001 5:35:25 AM PDT by rubbertramp
This "quality of life" stuff is PC in some medical schools. We sent a Native American lady who was spastic and had emotional outbursts from brain damage (frontal lobe syndrome) to a neurologist to see what medicine would help her the best. He spent the whole hour trying to talk her neice to stop the feeding tube and let her die: even though she was not in a coma, but knew her relatives and watched tv etc. The niece finally picked up her aunt and left, cursing him, saying: That's the difference between you white folks and us Indians. We don't kill off our elders.
A murderous ideology: Professor’s views inappropriate at state conference
IMAGINE a conference on Judaism at which Adolph Hitler were one of the keynote speakers, or a conference on the Russian Kulaks, slaughtered by the thousands under Soviet rule in the 1930s, in which Josef Stalin were a headliner, and you may begin to understand why some people are so upset at the Governor’s Commission on Disability having invited Princeton University professor Peter Singer to speak at Friday’s conference on the disabled.
Singer has become famous in academic circles for advocating the killing of non-sentient humans, including infants and the mentally disabled, if it is determined that their lives will not be enjoyable. His beliefs are somewhat complex, but they can be summed up by saying that he holds two views about human life that should cause any moral person to recoil in disgust.
The first is essentially that moral worth is determined not by one’s humanity but by one’s ability to understand and enjoy one’s own existence. Singer equates apes and dolphins, who seem to be able to comprehend that they are apes and dolphins and not humans or gerbils, with humans. Under this belief, it follows that any human who loses this ability to understand and comprehend loses his moral worth as well.
The second view is that the value of human life is determined not by its mere existence but by the quality of living of which each individual is capable. Therefore disabled or diseased individuals have diminished value because they will not be as happy as their healthier counterparts.
The combination of these two precepts has led Singer to believe that it is OK to take the life of humans who are unaware of their existence and who will be unable to live what he views as a happy life. In this category would fall unborn babies, newborn infants, and all sorts of individuals with mental or physical disabilities.
According to Singer, it is perfectly fine to kill in the name of happiness. “I do think it is sometimes appropriate to kill a human infant,” Singer said on Friday. For example, he said, killing a child born with spina bifida would be perfectly justifiable because so few spina bifida babies live anyway, and those who do will not lead an enjoyable life. “If parents and doctors decide it’s better, in some cases it might be permissible for them to kill,” Singer said. Singer defends these views by saying that Hitler wanted to kill in the name of racial purity but he, on the other hand, only wants to kill in the name of happiness. But that’s not the way Germans and Austrians see it. Singer can no longer speak in those countries because so many people protest his speeches. Those who suffered under Nazi and Soviet occupation see something in Singer that too many Americans don’t. They see that his views are the foundation upon which any murderous ideology can justify its killing. What is more, they understand that Singer’s philosophy is in itself a murderous ideology. There is no moral difference between slaughtering innocent babies while humming “Ride of the Valkyries” and slaughtering innocent babies while singing “Happy Happy, Joy Joy.” One still ends up murdering in the name of an ideology, elevating one’s self to the status of God. Former U.S. Sen. Gordon Humphrey said it best on Friday when he said, “Professor Singer has a First Amendment right to advocate his monstrous ideologies. However, he has no Constitutional right to appear before a prestigious forum such as the Governor’s Commission on Disabilities. Let him wail in the wilderness if he must, but no civilized government in America should give him an honored place to speak.”
So, killing a one-month old is perfectly acceptable, because they're not 'rational' yet... but killing animals is wrong. Gotchya. The face of the Compassion of the Left.
Bravo! Wasn't it the Governer who had Singer invited?
You see, when liberals discuss arts, they discuss which art is the best. They will tell you with a straight face that Mozart is superior to Beethoven or what not. What court of law can prove that save for a court of law lead by the insane twisted and wicked judges?
I mean what court of law can prove that an infant's smile, a theatrical artistical endeavor, is inferior to Pamela Anderson's breasts? See, our disgusting society is attempting, like the nutcase nazies, to establish a measure of consciousness and artistical abstract production in various human types. And, frankly, this is appaling for people working in liberal arts to support things like Singer or abortions. It's not liberal arts, it's nazi art of the insane.
Ever since make love not war came out, the art of war has been despised in favor of the art of love. Physical attractions primed over substantive moral and biological mandates and inalienable contents that deserve recognition beyond the physical. Then we switched to supporting the likes of gays who have fundamentaly based their attractions on a physical sexual organ - much like the Nazi physical obsession for white aryan skin. Next we have the likes of abortion advocates and Singer advocating the destruction of children because they do not express a physical ability to be thinking human, despite the very ability of infants to smile interactively and purposefuly - unlike any other animal.
Frankly those people are no better than the islamic jihad. The terror against art forms they wage in their midst is bound to be exported and enforced against others and other nations.
Oh what a difficult choice. To terminate a Stephen Hawking or a perfectly "normal" Singer.
Singer is disabled himself. It's called being morally bankrupt.
...the undercurrent to this whole article is that Singer thinks he's God.
Listen to what he says.......he defines what should be considered life. It's all about his definition.
You and Charlie Manson, Singer.
Groovy.
Yes, it was Shaheen (D)
Jeanne Shaheen must have a lot of money to waste if she can afford to hire unpopular speakers. I think she is taking orders from her liberal puppetmasters.
I worked for an institution for the retarded ten years ago and when it closed ....modeling itself after NH (which had a lousy history with the retarded), some organization put fliers about the benefits of euthanasia around the grounds.
Don't kid yourself. These people are serious about reducing population...Hitler's way.
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.