Just being human doesn’t grant you a right to life, says Princeton University ethicist Peter Singer, according to LifeSiteNews.
You have to be human and something else to qualify for not being killed. Presumably Singer would say you have to be human and Peter Singer to have a right to life. But once you give others the right to decide what comes after the “and” you’re going to have blood being spilled.
Once you caveat humanity things get ugly in a hurry.
You have to be human and…a member of the Communist party.
You have to be human and…not a Jew.
You have to be human and…not disabled.
You have to be human and…a boy.
As wacky as it sounds, Singer isn’t all that different from many pro-abortion rights leaders.
Remember when Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the New York Times about how she thought abortion would be used to target certain populations.
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” she said.
Hmmm. I always wonder which groups she was worried about having too many of.
The thing about Singer is that at least unapologetic about his anti-life logic. You have to give him props for that. He holds a parade for his crazy and invites the world to see. The money grabbers of Big Abortion and the pro-euthanasia crowd work best in shadows. They know they can’t say that stuff so they talk about “choice” and “rights” when what they really mean is that some people just don’t qualify for being human and need some killing.
They define life in a certain way and the sentence for falling short of that definition is death.
August 16, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Don't forget "human and…free of genetic disease"
August 16, 2012 at 9:05 pm
It seems pretty obvious to me that the absolute last person who should ever be given the right to define someone else's right to live would be someone who has just declared a desire to kill the person in question (the distressed mother, an anti-population agency etc.)It would be better to give that decision to someone picked randomly from the phone book than to hand it to the one who just expressed a motive for the killing in question.
August 16, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Is Singer an American citizen? American citizens are guaranteed their Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness by our Declaration of Independence. Another college professor who cannot read. Singer's students ought to sue for their tuition back. Singer came to America for our FREEDOMS. Now, Singer is denying to others the FREEDOMS he wants for himself.
August 17, 2012 at 12:01 am
Rebecca Taylor said…
Don't forget "human and…free of genetic disease" That lets Singer out. Singer may have no genetic diseases, but Singer is sure not human, as that would require a heart.
August 17, 2012 at 12:21 am
You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found unworthy.
This man is disturbed. His thinking is given the veneer of intellectualism because he has a degree behind it, but his heart is dark, his mind limited. He knows the price of things, but not their value. What he cannot see the purpose of, he dismisses as having no purpose. His imagination, along with his charity of spirit, is wanting. Pray for this man, he needs an ocean of charity to pour into his heart.
August 17, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Unfortunately this is not new. Singer is the 'father' of the article that appeared in the Journal of Medical Ethics earlier this year advocating the legitimacy of "post-birth abortion". The editor justified the article by saying that this was "well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises" that "have been presented repeatedly in the academic literature and public fora by the most eminent philosophers and bioethicists in the world". It's worse than we thought.
August 18, 2012 at 7:28 am
Anyone ever read that Chesterton story, in "The Paradoxes of Mr. Pond", about the two men who agreed so completely that one naturally murdered the other?
Specifically, they agreed (after the first one convinced the second one of utilitarian atheism) that it was all right to kill people who were of deleterious effect on the community—and the second one thought that the first was such a person.
So, Singer, are you sure you want the rest of us to stop respecting human life?