Peter Singer: women and children compared to cows overgrazing a field

[zone]

Peter Singer: women’s right to have children might have to be sacrificed for the environment

BY POPULATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Wed Jun 05, 2013 09:21

June 5, 2013 (Pop.org) - Bioethicist Peter Singer compared women and children to cows overgrazing a field and said that women’s reproductive rights may one day have to be sacrificed for the environment. He made the remarks at the global Women Deliver Conference last week, hailed as the most important meeting to focus on women and girls’ human rights in a decade.

The controversial Princeton University professor, known for championing infanticide and bestiality, was a featured panelist on Thursday at the three-day Women Deliver conference attended by Melinda Gates and more than 4,000 abortion and contraception activists in Kuala Lumpur.

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Peter Singer: women&#8217;s right to have children might have to be sacrificed for the environment < click

 

[zone]

Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer is famous for two primary reasons: First, he jump started the animal rights/liberation movement with his 1975 book Animal Liberation. Second, he is the world’s foremost proponent of the legitimacy of infanticide. Thus, writing on page 186 in Practical Ethics, he supported the right of parents to kill a newborn with hemophilia in order to make life easier for a hypothetical, yet-to-be-born sibling:

When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be higher if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.

It should be noted that the disability of the infant isn’t why he can be killed, but rather, his view that infants are not persons.

http://bioethics.com/?p=3205 < click

 

[zone]

Princeton Bioethics Professor Peter Singer: Devaluing Human Life

Singer is one of those rare people who is consistent with his worldview. Commendable if you have the right worldview, sometimes horrifying if you don't.

I have long been interested in the career of Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer. I've written about him in my books ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments and Why Prolife?

The New York Times, explaining how the values of Peter Singer 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.

Well, on that note, let me introduce you to the beliefs of this extraordinarily influential professor. Peter Singer wrote,

"The life of a fetus is of no greater value than the life of a nonhuman animal at a similar level of rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, etc.”Singer says, “If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or a pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant.”

When Singer came to teach at Princeton, he was protested by Not Dead Yet, a disabilities rights group. They took offense at Singer's books, which say it should be legal to kill disabled infants, as well as children and adults with severe cognitive disabilities.

Singer suggests that individual human worth is based on its usefulness to others...

eternal perspective ministries

 

[zone]

BIOETHICS NEW NAME FOR EUGENICS:

...


"The Population Council, one of the new eugenics organizations that emerged after World War II, no longer spoke of eugenics as a religion, but launched "studies relating to the social, ethical and moral dimensions" of population studies, recognizing that these questions involved matters "of a cultural, moral and spiritual nature."5 The new field of bioethics is a response to issues raised by eugenics.6

Bioethics is based on situation ethics, which was developed largely by Joseph Fletcher, a member of the American Eugenics Society. In 1973, Daniel Callahan, a prominent Catholic dissenter and a member of the American Eugenics Society, outlined the new field in the first issue of Hastings Center Studies.7

HISTORY OF EUGENICS

In 1798, an English clergyman and economist named Thomas Robert Malthus published the Essay on the Principle of Population. The central idea of his book is that population increases exponentially and will therefore eventually outstrip food supply. If parents failed to limit the size of their families, then war or famine would kill off the excess. The idea has been remarkably resilient, although the specific predictions that Malthus made were wrong. Malthus argued that the island of Britain could not sustain a population of 20 million, but 150 years later the population was more than triple Malthus' ceiling.

Charles Darwin, the biologist, was immensely impressed by Malthus' ideas, and the Malthusian theories are embedded in Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selectio (The Origin of Species, 1859, and The Descent of Man, 1871). But after Darwin borrowed ideas from economics and inserted them into biology, his cousin reversed the process and discovered ideas in biology that could be applied to humans. This is one of the first tricks that amateur magicians learn, like "finding" a coin in a child's ear. The amazing thing about Galton's stunt is that it has fooled so many people for so long.....

American Bioethics Advisory Commission < click


above link is to a good basic resource for further research into Eugenics/Bioethics:


American Bioethics Advisory Commission

Eugenics

Introduction to Eugenics

The principal manifestations of eugenics are racism and abortion; eugenics is the basis for "scientific racism" and laid the foundation for legalizing abortion. It is the driving force behind euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, and embryo and fetal research. It is the driving force in global population policy, which is a key element in American foreign policy. It is the force driving much of the environmentalist movement, welfare policy, welfare reform, and health care. It is found in anthropology, sociology, psychology—all the social sciences. It is reflected in much American literature, especially science fiction. So it is worth some study

 

[loveme1]

Luke 23 kjv

And there followed him a great company of people, and of women, which also bewailed and lamented him. 28But Jesus
turning unto them said, Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children. 29For, behold, the days are coming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck. 30Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us. 31For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry?

 

[jimmydiggs]

Someone on another thread posted a website with randomly selected Luther insults.

I found one particularly fitting.

Yes, what happened to you is what must happen when one paints the devil above the door and asks him to be godfather.

From Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, pg. 298 of Luther's Works, Vol. 41

 

[kayem77]

That's sickening! I don't know how these people come to be respected and worthy of honor . It's ridiculous

 

[Ritter]

The modern age has discarded eternal laws in the name of freedom and "reproductive rights."

They create their own system of ethics to protect "reproductive rights."

Their apostles reject "reproductive rights" in favor of what is considered good for the faceless collective.

Oh irony thou art cruel.

 

[psychomom]

I'm sitting here wondering what might have happened if Peter Singer's life had not been deemed worthy of protection when he was born...

How would he feel about that little idea? Had there been such an evil man (men) making these decisions for his parents?

But I guess it's never about Peter Singer, only about others.