Provenzo: Sarah Palin had a moral obligation to kill this baby!
There is a Prof Singer at Priceton that made the same case several years ago. Was cornered like a rat on campus by some students in wheelchairs shortly afterwards.
The author's argument is equally applicable to members of the Welfare Class, but is unlikely to be so applied.
It is good to have occasional reminders why we don’t want NAZI’s deciding who lives and dies, under socialized medicine.
I didn’t believe in reincarnation until now — because in this monstrous pissant, Joseph Mengele has apparently rejoined us.
It was called "The Final Solution."
These guys are scarey.
“..suggests that Sarah Palins decision to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome, is a financial burden that others are forced to suffer with.”
The writer would be a high-ranking member of the SS in Hitler’s Germany.
I’m sure that Provenzo would have experienced a rare delight if it had been possible for him to abort Trig Palin himself.
Of course I suspect that Todd Palin would have acted appropriately and we would now be reading Provenzo’s obituary.
What a disgusting piece of inhuman sh*t this Provenzo is.
Real humans don’t make life and death decisions based solely on some elitist and extremist notion of “value”. This guy would have fit in well with the Nazis.
Too bad Nicholas’s Mother wasn’t a baby killer.
There was a time when Objectivist writers would have deplored the system that places such a financial burden on others. Sarah Palin herself has no personal power to make us pay for the care of others. That’s the power of the welfare state.
Rand would not have been pleased by such intellectual slovenliness.
If you cannot fill the needs of the State, you have no purpose!
Yeah, sign me up for that/sarc
By this guys thinking, Casey Anthony would be considered a hero.
This so called 'objectivist' writer is a drain on society and should be aborted.
Not too surprising he appeared on Maher’s show. One, the scum of the earth and the other even worse.
1. Where do we draw the line, when deciding which humans to sacrifice for the greater good?
2. How high would unemployment go, if we had no need for helping professionals?
He said when they first found out, they were devastated. He then said the child had turned out to be a tremendous blessing to them. He said he was full of love and affection.
This guys probably doesn’t like Bridget McCain either.....
Hitler felt the same way.
Yes, my kids are a financial burden. So is the Federal government. Guess which one I would rather kill?
Terribly false reasoning. Such zero sum logic is not “objectivist” but irrational, and in a manner common among the far left, whose axiom is always that all things must be rationed because all things are in critical shortage. In turn, critical shortage must always be assumed, because that is the only condition in which rationing makes sense.
Say there are two people with one apple. By leftist logic, they should divide the apple, under the assumption that it is the only apple. Even if it is pointed out that the two people with one apple are in a grocery store, next to a bin full of apples, then the leftist would assume that they don’t have enough money to get another apple.
If this is the case, then they would say that all money should be divided equally, so that both of these people will have an apple. And yet the grocery store is across the street from an apple orchard full of ripe apples, free for the taking. It doesn’t really matter that the person who doesn’t have an apple doesn’t like apples, or even if he is allergic to apples.
The bottom line is that the world has vast amounts of apples, yet the leftist is so narrow minded, and actually philosophically compelled to assume shortage and rationing, that they are incapable of accepting any other process than socialism.
To make matters worse, time and time again, socialism has proven that it can only, at the best of times, provide rotten and wormy apples, but eventually it will provide no apples, yet demand all the resources in the world to not provide apples.