Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled Infants

LifeSiteNews | 9/12/06 | John-Henry Westen

[T'wit]

Yes, but who is Michigan Bill?

[Coleus]

the only good thing about princeton is that they have an active pro-life club.

[firebrand]

It is not good that he does it in an upfront manner, because he stands on the prestige and mystique of Princeton University, and thousands are swayed by this. He should shut up about it.

[T'wit]

Here is a deep, intelligent review of Singer's essay, which concludes that Singer's efforts to sanitize Darwin suffer a "fatal incoherence." But let the reviewer, Nancy Pearcey, tell you why.

Review: Peter Singer's "A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation"

[firebrand]

I know someone who is so proud that her son is starting his Ph.D. in philosophy at Princeton. She had never heard of Peter Singer.

[Coleus]

She had never heard of Peter Singer >>

I guess she'll find out soon. You may want to click on his keyword and send it on to her.

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Didn't everyone see the blankness during Schiavo? If this country could starve a woman to death for a week and a half... to allow that, we're finished to say the least.
115 posted on 09/13/2006 3:41:02 PM EDT by AliVeritas

A society which no longer defends innocent life is finished as a civilization and fades into barbarism and sadistic tyranny. Along with those who provide the rationale for such genocide. It's a damnable legacy to leave behind for subsequent generations.

[NicknamedBob]

I'm only saying that just because Singer describes himself as a Darwinist, if he does, that doesn't mean that any large portion of Darwinists, evolutionists, or fence-sitters would be in agreement with him or his conclusions.

I believe that evolution occurs. I believe that countless examples in our everyday lives show it in action. But just because I can see the cold hand of Nature in inter-species rivalries doesn't mean that I think people should be subjected to the same ruthless Procrustean ordeal.

We are a cooperative species, helping each other when we can, knowing that eventually, we too will be in need. Singer likes to think of himself as the rugged individualist, the frontiersman, needing and asking nothing of society.

He is heading for a brutal fall.

[BykrBayb]

Resistance is futile, and so is your life.

[Casio]

Pro-life, pro choice matters:

I am neither of the above. I have pro and against views for both approach. A few, not in order of importance, just randomly:

1. As a surgical resident I was rotating through ICU for 3 months. It was an unimaginable horror. Many people were literally tortured, before their body resisted any further "treatment" and finally died. Some of course recovered, but we doctors pretty much knew ahead of time, who has a realistic chance and who doesn't, but under the current views, we must tried even those who we knew has no realistic chance to survive. Eventually I exited surgery and became an ob-gyn doctor (deals mostly with new life, not death), but that was my selfish and personal solution. The only time when I saw a sparkle of true humanity, when they called code in the emergency room, a 92 year old man was brought in, in cardiac arrest, the medical history contained inoperable terminal cancer with metastasis all over his body, and the code team tried to resuscitate him. Finally the team leader arrived and called off the code saying "you people are insane" (referring to the rest of the team). He was right.

2. Do we really know when life begins?

In single cell life forms there is meosis and mitosis, then two cells become. There is no literal end of life or beginning of life. Ever. One life splits into two lives, and while one life ends somewhere along the line, the other cell can live on, and split further. Which is the original? Which is the "later product", there is no way to tell, thus it would be fair to conclude that among single cell beings there is no "beginning of life" as such.

In higher level life forms the same thing happens, only "deferred" in space and time. The sperm, the egg, is halving the genetic product (meiosis equivalent), which fuses later (mitosis equivalent). Neither is exactly the same, but the concept is either the same, or very very similar. In which case there is no "beginning of life" even in higher level beings. The sperm and the egg, is life the same way the single cell beings are life at the stage of meosis.

Before someone would protest, that "yes, but in higher level beings after the fusion of the genetic material there will be one final individual (opposed to two), it is not exactly true either, since identical twinning is possible (splitting of the zygote, or even the conceptus after several cell divisions. Therefore, not even the zygote is an absolute single individual per se.

What did I want to say with all this? That mankind haven't reached the knowledge yet, to know where and when life begins, if there is such a thing at all, and life is not continuous, as it is with single cell beings.

Many other thoughts, but let see whether anyone will respond to this one first.

Gabor

[Soothesayer]

That's hilarious :)

[jwalsh07]

In which case there is no "beginning of life" even in higher level beings. The sperm and the egg, is life the same way the single cell beings are life at the stage of meosis.

This is nonsense and a testament to the poor state of the academy in todays America. Genetics tells us quite clearly that new human life, a diploid organism, is extant after fertilization completes.

The twinning argument is supercilious nonsense that goes like this. Because the zygote may split into two distinct human organisms it is OK to kill that human life. IOW's two for the price of one justifies killing human life.

The science of genetics is clear, the problem is that college level developmental biology books are rife with ideology stepping all over the science. Your tome is a prime example of that.

[Old Professer]

Sanctification of human life is an asset to society only as long there is agreement between its members to promote and maintain order, war allows for neglect of the principle as does want and famine.

Singer's biggest "sin" is equating perfection with utility.

[TET1968]

If disabled professors are fair game as well, I'm willing to listen.

[TET1968]

"Peter Singer's mother has Alzheimer's."

I can understand why.

[streetpreacher]

Singer = the Left's version of Fred Phelps.

Oops, I forgot, Phelps is there guy too.

[Texas_shutterbug]

I agree.

He's ethically consistent. There is no difference between a baby one week before birth and a baby one week after birth.

However, as the mother of a handicapped child, I find hiim morally repugnant. I certainly wouldn't mourn his death. He's not much more than a cow to me.

[Texas_shutterbug]

CRAP! That should mean that I find SANGER morally repugnant. Not my child!

Despite the bad sentence structure, I hope that was understood.

[Texas_shutterbug]

CRAP! That should mean that I find SANGER morally repugnant. Not my child!

Despite the bad sentence structure, I hope that was understood.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

A natural conclusion based on the leftist-feminazi obsession with killing their babies.