Princeton ethicist: it's 'reasonable' to kill disabled newborn babies

Rate this post

Campus Reform: Princeton professor and animal rights activist Peter Singer argued in a radio interview that it is “reasonable” for healthcare providers, insurance companies, and government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid to kill mentally disabled babies.
Singer appeared on the Aaron Klein Investigative Radio show to discuss his latest book, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.
Klein asked Singer—who served as a task force coordinator on President Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign—if he believes that Obamacare will lead to healthcare rationing in the United States, specifically in relation to “disabled” babies. Singer’s answer? It already has.
For example, Singer said, doctors routinely end the life of babies born with brain hemorrhages. “If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother… doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.”

Peter Singer, bioethicist

Peter Singer, bioethicist

Doctors who kill disabled babies, Singer explains, are likely “just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after.”
This is not a new position for Professor Singer; on his faculty page on Princeton’s website, Singer argues that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” “A normal newborn baby has no sense of the future,” Singer writes, “and therefore is not a person.”
messed up
Similarly, in his 1979 book Practical Ethics, Singer claims that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all.” Elsewhere in Practical Ethics, the bioethics professor claims that “[n]o infant—disabled or not—has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities.”
However, while Singer believes infants have little (if any) right to life, he has devoted much of his life to making the exact opposite argument with regard to chimpanzees and other non-human animals.
In 1975, Singer wrote his best-selling book Animal Liberation, which helped him earn a spot on TIME Magazine’s 2005 list of the world’s 100 most influential people. In Animal Liberation, Singer argued that “humans and animals are equal in the sense that the fact that a being is human does not mean that we should give the interests of that being preference over the similar interests of other beings. That would be speciesism.”
In 1993, Singer co-founded “The Great Ape Project,” which defines itself as “an international movement that aims to defend the rights of non-human great primates.” These rights, Singer explains in a 2006 article, include “life [and] liberty.” Singer bases his reasoning on “ the principle of equal consideration of interests,” which he says demands that humans give equal consideration to “non-human animals.” Those who “give greater weight to the interests of members of their own species when there is a clash between their interests and the interests of those of other species,” Singer says, are “speciesists.”
While “non-human great primates” have a “right” to life, that same right—according to Singer—does not extend to human infants. In a 2012 op-ed defending abortion, Singer claimed that “membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.”
Singer takes the argument one step further in “Taking Life: Humans” by arguing that if killing a “haemophiliac infant” meant that the infant’s parents could have another child in his place, it would “be right to kill him.”
Most people, Singer argued, would say “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”
However, not all members of the Princeton community share Singer’s views towards infanticide. “Peter Singer’s views demonstrate the logical extreme to which a view of personhood based on some developed capability or trait must carry us,” Princeton junior Christine Smith told Campus Reform.
“When personhood is no longer defined by our innate humanity or our intrinsic value, then we necessarily approach a view that embraces the killing of seriously disabled, or even merely unwanted, infants,” she said. While Peter Singer’s views are obviously idiosyncratic, it is important to take them seriously because they reveal the inherent problem of trying to define certain categories of humans as more valuable or more protected than others.”
“[W]e are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants,” Singer declared on Sunday. “And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.”

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Princeton ethicist: it's 'reasonable' to kill disabled newborn babies

  1. And yet, his mother let him live. What a loser. He is not God, he has no idea what anyone’s potential will be. Miracles happen.

  2. Reblogged this on My Bloggerdiok.

  3. In a just world where human beings still listen to their conscience, the words “Peter Singer” and “ethicist” would be an oxymoron.

    • Obviously,he thinks HE’S not “mentally disabled” and thus is exempt to his own plan. HE is less than Human.

    • I had the same thought when I saw Bioethicist with his name.
      This one really took the prize: “A normal newborn baby has no sense of the future,” Singer writes, “and therefore is not a person.”
      How bout people with no hearts like Mr. Singer are not human.

  4. Kevin J Lankford

    And on what side of the Lord does this uhhhh……..person …sit?

    • Kevin,
      Peter Singer neither believes in the Lord nor cares about what Jesus Christ thinks. From Wiki:
      “Singer’s parents were Viennese Jews who emigrated to Australia from Vienna in 1938, after Austria’s annexation by Nazi Germany…. Singer is an atheist.”

      • Northerngirl

        Great detective work Dr. Eowyn!! Singer lacks all the best things that make us human such as love, empathy, compassion and respect. Being an atheist that makes sense, he’s an emotional desert not unlike most people with the varying psychotic disorders.

        • I do beg your pardon, but did you just call atheists abnormals? Demented folks suffering from varying psychotic disorders?
          Theist, atheist, antitheist. Two of these work of faith, they believe in “things not seen”, in assumptions, in things that aren’t there; or at the very least can’t be proven. The indisputable and indefensible. The atheist is a professional fence sitter who doesn’t believe we should stone rape victims because they didn’t scream loud enough, who doesn’t believe that disease is a punishment from god and should be left alone, they don’t believe. That’s it.
          No belief. A severe and purposeful lack of faith.
          The entire point is to reduce values from “how pious are you” and “do you belong to the proper group (“racial”, cultural, religious, or otherwise)” and move it instead to “are they human”. Because all people are people and once you stop demanding there’s a god, that’s all you have left.
          Singer on the other and is just a f***wit. They’re common among all creeds, or lack thereof, and deciding that anyone who doesn’t believe in your particular god is insane is not how you win converts. And quite frankly you’re a terrible Christian; you’re making us look bad.
          And then this?
          “To put chimps and other “non human” animals on equal footing or greater when it comes to the right to life issues is just satanic. … Not one of those lives is meaningless”
          Well that’s the point. The lives of animals are on the same level as humans. Yet you think that’s satanic? Please calm down a little and stop being so judgemental. For one thing, Matthew 7:1, for another, Luke 17:2. Don’t be one of those crazies who cause people to turn away.

  5. Northerngirl

    Mr. Singer is seriously deranged! To put chimps and other “non human” animals on equal footing or greater when it comes to the right to life issues is just satanic. Singer’s soul has become evil and he measures people’s worth in dollars. To our Creator every life is valuable, loved and belongs to him. Not one of those lives is meaningless. Playing God is not a role that belongs to Singer, Obama or any of the other infanticide proponents.

  6. The mystery of evil. He looks like an intelligent big hearted uncle, yet his viewpoint is straight from the depths of Hell.

  7. WOW I MEAN REALLY WOW! WTF did I even read this. Oh Yes im giving my opinion while im able to do so freely. I have a daughter {Mariah} Yes she has a name and oh she has a soul too, and she is very disabled. Im not going to lie and say it’s easy taking care of Mariah, but the lines are becoming more and more invisible about what people think about life. What happens if we are given that situation and able to make a choice? Thank You God that I did not have that choice. No matter what taking care of Mariah is hard, but what I have gained in the love of Mariah will never be taken away! So Mr. Singer If you are interested in seeing this beautiful girl Mariah, What the hell why not all of the disabled in the world and then speak your idea to these little ones and see what they say!! Doris David

    • God bless you, Doris, for not aborting Mariah. There may come a time when Peter Singer’ll discover that, according to someone else’s definition, he is “disabled” (one can be spiritually disordered) and should be killed.
      Someone already did that! His name is Adolf Hitler, who had millions of Singer’s fellow Jews exterminated because he deemed Jews a bacteria race who perpetrate and foment the greatest evils of human civilization.

      • Dr Eowyn . . . great post! All I can say to your comments is Amen! and Amen! It is difficult if not downright impossible to logically follow Mr Singer’s argument regarding animals being equal to the offspring of humans. Perhaps you have to be an atheist for it to make any sense.

      • Mark Timothy

        Adolph Hitler did no such thing ! For 70 years the koolaid served to everybody has been mixed up by the likes and “fellows” of Singer.
        No thinking person drinks it anymore. It is an asinine fable.

  8. Would love to hear Singer’s message in my handicapped childs school auditorium, full of parents, who take care of children like the ones you would wish that type of fate on. DARE YOU!!!! You are an old wrinkled up piece of pond scum….and you or anyone who agrees with this idiot should share the same fate as the child who is unable to speak to defend their own well being.. you are soulless, you and your opinions shouldn’t exist

  9. Bonnie Parvino

    There was a time that the Presbyterian Patriots of Princeton (then College of New Jersey) were builders of this nation  from the Declaration of Independence & even the Constitution. We must learn from each other.  If one observes the Holy Family, & has proper respect, honor & reverence toward both the Holy Mother & Chosen Joseph, then we will have no homosexuality because God chose both the Holy Mother & Chosen Joseph to parent His Son.  And the Son of God was the product of the Word of God & the Holy Womb of the Precious Holy Mother. All life in the womb is Holy.  I do not believe in abortion.  Bonnie Parvino

  10. I’d like to hear his views when someone decides to turn off his respirator …

  11. Peter Singer belongs in Hell. Satan, can you do it now please? We’re tired of this sh*t

  12. Pingback: Princeton ethicist: it’s ‘reasonable’ to kill disabled newborn babies | The Armageddon Times

  13. Because he equated animals with humans he has become illogical and therefore, made a terrific hypocrite of himself and a bigot of human kind. Do not trust him.

  14. Peter Singer is pro- Bestiality, too. I got this from Wikipedia. You can’t make this vile stuff up! I guess this is the real reason he likes animals so much – he’s attracted to them!:
    In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers’ Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities.

  15. This jew believes as all jews do about the goyim. Especially White civilization. For it is his worst enemy.
    The jew hates beauty in all forms. The degenerate jew will subvert and destroy works of art, a nations currency, it’s morals and finally it’s culture. Remember. The jew invented the multi-cult cesspool of today that we see all the deformity and sickness in the children. A pure bloodline can never be infected unless it is subjected to the lower class/race.
    The jew, being a mongrel himself, can only imitate high culture. He cannot become higher than his station. And this is why they promote mass immigration into White countries. It is easier to rule a defective race.

  16. Pingback: Intelwars2 – For Tomorrows News, Today, May 3, 2015. – The Constitution – The Bill of Rights – And The Ten Commandments Are Under Assault! 24 Hour Emergency Broadcast Lines! (512) 646 – 5000 or (605) 562 – 7701. | Shepherd

  17. Pingback: MAY 3, 2015 – Recent Posts intelwars2 – “There is no certainty in the world because of the unpredictable nature of man’s free will. Blessed Mother @ Holy Love December 4, 2013 | Shepherd

  18. Peter Singer has been mentally deranged for many years, if not his entire life. It is clear to me the man is satanic, if not outright demonically possessed. Yet why does he linger on? Psychiatry does not provide the answer. But another view of it does….
    I used to think Communism was the worst idea possible—worse than Nazism. (Both are demonic). But then I have come around to identifying the idea behind them. And that idea is EUGENICS. Eugenics is the ultimate ideological wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yes, it would be great if the human race were composed of nothing but perfect sparkling specimens, the “noble intention” states. (Or would have us believe). But how do we get to that state of affairs? BY KILLING OFF ALL THE BAD STOCK, THAT’S HOW.
    But they just can’t come out and say this publicly. They cannot admit this in open court. (At least not until Singer). Both the so-called theory of Evolution and Eugenics—both ideas originated in ENGLAND—are the ideological DNA from which Nazism and Communism sprung forth.
    But then again, upon looking at it farther, I looked to the personal lives of some of these men of the 19th Century. Singer is Nietzschean to a tee: He wants the Uber-Mensch to come along, destroy the old Moral Code and impose his own Moral Code upon humanity. And if you read Darwin and Lenin long enough, they, too, want the same thing. Because they want to be that Uber-Mensch.
    Clearly, this idea, this way of thinking is anti-human and anti-Christian. It is Anti-Christ thinking. AND THEY KNOW THIS.
    Both Nietzsche and Lenin (I suspect but do not know about Darwin) had SYPHILIS. Syphilis killed more than 110 million people between 1860 and 1950! Syphilis is a peculiar physical and mental disease which, in its tertiary stages, leads to insanity and delusions of grandeur. Nietzsche and Lenin became strangely deluded and deranged the longer their disease progressed and the older they got. And now Singer, even without the physical disease itself, becomes the same way, because he thinks that such a way of thinking is a good end in itself. Surely, intellectual inquiry should be made of sterner stuff!

  19. Disgusting POS. 🙁

  20. Brian Hitchcock

    I think civilized society should decide that this guy has breathed enough of our air and put a bullet in him.’
    No different than what he is espousing.

  21. Pushing Infanticide | Center for Bioethics and Culture


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.