Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Philosopher of Death - Peter Singer

My friend Tom, the Pooklekufr (and a Constitutionalist, BTW) sent me this, The most influential philosopher alive by Marvin Olasky and published by townhall.com. He also sent this short biography from Wikipedia.

This is where the Left™ is going;
PRINCETON, N.J. -- Republicans are winning elections, but the long-term problem of the left dominance within academia remains. Consider, for example, the influence of Princeton professor Peter Singer.

Many readers may be saying, "Peter who?" -- but The New York Times, explaining how his views trickle down through media and academia to the general populace, noted that "No other living philosopher has had this kind of influence." The New England Journal of Medicine said he has had "more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior" than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell. The New Yorker called him the "most influential" philosopher alive.

Don't expect Singer to be quoted heavily on the issue that roiled the Nov. 2 election, same-sex marriage. That for him is intellectual child's play, already logically decided, and it's time to move on to polyamory. While politicians debate the definition of marriage between two people, Singer argues that any kind of "fully consensual" sexual behavior involving two people or 200 is ethically fine.

For example, when I asked him recently about necrophilia (what if two people make an agreement that whoever lives longest can have sexual relations with the corpse of the person who dies first?), he said, "There's no moral problem with that." Concerning bestiality -- should people have sex with animals, seen as willing participants? -- he responded, "I would ask, 'What's holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?' (but) it's not wrong inherently in a moral sense."

If the 21st century becomes a Singer century, we will also see legal infanticide of born children who are ill or who have ill older siblings in need of their body parts.

Question: What about parents conceiving and giving birth to a child specifically to kill him, take his organs and transplant them into their ill older children? Singer: "It's difficult to warm to parents who can take such a detached view, (but) they're not doing something really wrong in itself." Is anything wrong with a society in which children are bred for spare parts on a massive scale? "No."
With apologies to my friend Charles, read all of it, for it is good.

There is also the Wikipedia entry. Under the heading "Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide" we read;
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being's ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one's future. [what?!?!, someone who is mentally ill and cannot perform this function has no right to life then? - ed.] Since the unborn, infants and severely disabled people lack the latter (but not the former) ability, he states that abortion, painless infanticide and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents. [links are from the Wikipedia entry, they are not mine except where indicated - ed.]
If this is not evil, then nothing is evil. Look again at the first two paragraphs of the townhall.com piece. This is not some "way out there" nutcase who is without influence. This guy is the most influential philosopher alive.

I have an earlier post related to this. This man is a Professor at Princeton University teaching amorality and death to our nation's students.

I am so angry my hands are shaking.

UPDATE:
Last November MSNBC reported, Netherlands grapples with euthanasia of babies - Hospital carries out procedure on few terminally ill infants.
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands - A hospital in the Netherlands — the first nation to permit euthanasia — recently proposed guidelines for mercy killings of terminally ill newborns, and then made a startling revelation: It has already begun carrying out such procedures, which include administering a lethal dose of sedatives.

The announcement by the Groningen Academic Hospital came amid a growing discussion in Holland on whether to legalize euthanasia on people incapable of deciding for themselves whether they want to end their lives — a prospect viewed with horror by euthanasia opponents and as a natural evolution by advocates.

In August, the main Dutch doctors’ association KNMG urged the Health Ministry to create an independent board to review euthanasia cases for terminally ill people “with no free will,” including children, the severely mentally retarded and people left in an irreversible coma after an accident.
We are on that slippery slope to eugenics. Strange how we can fail to learn even the biggest lessons.

1 comment:

Simon said...

Just a quick comment.

He is not actually advocating the death of a second child, just that it seems ethical to him to make a baby and harvest some organs from him, to help a older sibling, without killing the second baby.

Having to healthy children instead of a dying one.