When we were children, monsters would move from movie screens and story books to the shadows in our rooms or dark corners of our imaginations. Today they appear in the nightly news and history books, in the aftermath of their crimes, or on the internet wearing black masks, recording their crimes against the “Nation of the Cross”, or anyone else that lives differently than them.
But sometimes they walk along side us, posing as intelligent and well adjusted adults, only revealing their fangs when opening their mouths.
Peter Singer, a Princeton University “Ethics” professor has suggested with a straight face that severely disabled infants be killed to cut health care costs and for moral reasons. He also said it would be “quite reasonable” for doctors to kill infants with severe disabilities under Obamacare.
Several times during a recent radio interview Singer argued the health-care system under Obamacare should openly acknowledge health-care rationing (remember the debate and alarm over “Death Panels” when Obamacare was just a bill?) and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”
In one of his rather infamous books, Practical Ethics, Singer declared, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.” Singer also repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as “it” during the recent interview.
Aside from the obvious stain that Princeton University wears from putting (and keeping) someone like Singer in a position of prestige, one doesn’t have to be a professor to realize Singer’s ideas are nothing more than newly crafted versions of the failed Eugenics thinking, utilized by the Nazis. I’m not suggesting that Singer is a Nazi, just that his ideas are Nazi-ish.
And here is why I’m compelled to criticize: Long before the Nazi’s Eugenics philosophy bore the most vile fruit, deceiving entire nations and slaughtering millions of innocent people, they began as ideas and concepts floated out amongst intelligent and reasonable people, topics of lectures from podiums, conversations around dinner tables and polished narratives in books.
The language was well crafted and rehearsed; it re-defined terms like personhood, moral, good, bad, life and death. The repulsiveness of the ideas were sugar coated and made more palatable, and then served up so frequently that they became an acquired taste.
I see a dark part of history starting to repeat itself, and we Catholics must open the blinds to scatter the monsters back to the shadows, or the closets or under the beds, or wherever monsters go when lights are turned on.
The real danger we find ourselves in is that the Peter Singers of our world may be influencing authorities. Government officials and administrators, far removed from the vulnerable human beings they discuss, may like that Singer’s words provide a sterile, “practical” and subjective reality, allowing them to adopt both convenient solutions to complex issues, and personal plausible deniability.
I often write for Catholics and non-Catholic Christians in the workplace. Before anyone dismisses this article as just a philosophical argument, consider that if human lives can be redefined and reduced to mere data inside government and academic institutions, they can also be compromised in many ways within our corporations, as we pursue financial targets or personal performance goals!
The real, objective truth about life is still Biology 101, it begins at conception. Each human being is unique and capable of unprecedented accomplishments – at every stage.
And about the infants Peter Singer thinks are unworthy of this world? Let us never discard this universal truth, so eloquently delivered by Saint Pope John Paul II, in his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life):
“At the dawn of salvation, it is the Birth of a Child which is proclaimed as joyful news…Christmas also reveals the full meaning of every human birth, and the joy which accompanies the Birth of the Messiah is thus seen to be the foundation and fulfillment of joy at every child born into the world”.
13 thoughts on “Monsters are Among Us!”
This is the same guy who believes that animals should have the same legal rights as humans! The fact that he calls himself an “ethicist” is laughable. What is not laughable is the fact that Princeton University continues to have this guy on its faculty despite his offensive views regarding human life. For shame, Princeton, for shame!
making some people of less value than other people under the law is just what totalitarians do.
Universities hire people like Singer. If you view the university as the centerpiece of the culture of death, this makes sense.
Let me start by saying that I abhor the vast majority of Singer’s moral philosophy as do the vast majority of bioethicists. Singer is a hedonistic utilitarian who believe in the greater good for the greatest numbers. His reasoning become more convoluted and repulsive when he delves into speciesism and blurs the boundaries between species.
That said, the Nazi genocides do not really flow consistently from Singer’s thought, as his grandparents died in concentration camps…these action were a result of attempts to enhance Aryian purity of race. The Nazi Action T-4 is consistent with Singer’s beliefs about the value of the severely disabled…”lives not worthy of life.”
The great bioethicist foundations for abortion do not flow from Singer. Many years prior, Mary Anne Warren elaborated upon a moral philosophy that distinguished “human beings” from “personhood.” The later had four defined criteria in her schema; hence some one could be a human being and not possess personhood, hence a justification for abortion. As a fetus while a human being did not meet her criteria for personhood. Singer followed her reasoning and diminished the value of disabled and hence infanticide of the disabled could be justified in a utilitarian schema….greater good for greater numbers.
The truth is that few people see the world through utilitarian hedonistic eyes. Action T-4 will not repeat except in extremist world of jihad…but that is a function of religion not utilitarianism.
And yes, a zygote is life…a simple diploid. The question which will be debated for years is when does this zygote attain personhood? When it develops into a fetus, when it can exist outside the womb, when….it will be a debate for centuries. The traditional Catholic position is clear, the majprity do not hold that position. Dialogue which is respectful will allow for understanding, but probably never agreement. Singer contributes nothing to the dialogue.
“someone could be a human being and not possess personhood, hence a justification for abortion. As a fetus while a human being did not meet her criteria for personhood.”
While that idea brings sharp divisions and much controversy, I basically accept it. Personhood is something that develops over time. We start out with our genetic makeup. Some would say that makes us a person right there. I say there is more to being a person than that. I think it is kind of tough to set a line of demarcation at the entry point from the womb to the exterior world, but that seems to be the most practical thing to do. Once we’re out, we’re in. We’re protected by the laws of the land with any and all our imperfections.
The criteria which Singer and Warren developed for “personhood.” are entirely subjective definers. Most fetuses, etc which possess the DNA for Down never would meet the criteria for personhood and could be eliminated at any point in time. I personally oppose the elimination of an Sembryo or fetus which genetic testing could determine to have Down, Spina Bifida, etc. I refuse to ever accept the abortion of a fetus or embryo based upon disability, sex, etc. regardless of these notions of personhood. Selective abortion is a concept that I ethically oppose….
I respect your opinion because I am aware of your situation. I personally only agree with you about selective abortion based on gender. To me, that is so wrong. I’m not selfless enough to knowingly go along with the birth of anything but a completely healthy child. I know how selfish and shallow that seems but it would be too important a decision for me to make for me to worry about the moral implications. That’s just the way I am and I’m aware of my being like that.
Respectfully, your posts sent actual chills through me. Very sad to read.
You and I have diametrically opposed worldviews.
Whatever is done to the least of these is done to Me, Jesus.
Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION - Big Pulpit
It may be Biology 101 as to when life begins. It is not universally accepted that life is “sacred”. That is a word that means something very significant to the segment of society opposed to any termination of any human life any time. It could be something as seemingly benign as a rape victim taking a morning after pill to giving a dying patient extra morphine to mercifully end his life as I have witnessed with my own beloved father.
Before there can be any fruitful dialogue, the limits as to when and how a life can be terminated when it is the right thing to do must be established.
Around the world, and throughout history, power people have used whatever ideology works – caspitalism, marxism, socialism, communism, national socialism, fascism – as a tool to gain, maintain, and increase power of the ruled – us. Part of this is often to define some class or group of human beings as not human, as subhumans, as not legal persons. This appeals to many people who then cede their power and liberty to the power people. So it was with Nazi/Jew, American1865/black “property”, and now today liberal/unborn child.Those who are thus used by the power people silently acquiesce, for stability, peace, status, pleasure on as in USAToday, me-me-me-now-now-now feel good and do what one wants. John C: you have put the lie to all this. As to just how far these folks go see Prostitution Politics and Abortion Celebrations at the site Catholic Lane. John C: keep on keepin’ on and thanks for today “nurturing my soul.” Guy McClung, San Antonio