[Faith-talk] beings to determine whether they are “persons.”

[Poppa Bear]

I myself am fairly familiar with this line of thought and I am not sure why it is laughable that he could be couched as a bio Ethos's, from my understanding he is more or less right in line with the heart of the branch of that science. For the most part, in my opinion it is no different than the reasoning of Hitler's or Margaret Sanger, the founder of plan parenthood, they only package their thoughts in different words. Look at Margaret Sanger, her ideas and program has managed to carry out more murders than the holocaust and most insurance plans including the government will pay for it. We're not too far off from 
Singers views being more excepted the way I see it. You have guys like him in many prominent colleges in teaching positions and heading up reputable scientific editorials making powerful arguments for their positions and they are making new converts everyday while many in the Church just sit back, smile and say, "Now, let's not be confrontational, let's not judge anybody." This is what happened in Germany with the Catholic Church, along with other churches, they tried to play a passive role until their own Priests were being trained off and being put in the gas chambers. What does it really mean to be a Soldier for Christ anyways? 
-----Original Message-----
From: Faith-talk [mailto:faith-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Philip Blackmer via Faith-talk
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 11:04 PM
To: nfbwatalk at nfbnet.org; faith-talk at nfbnet.org
Cc: Philip Blackmer
Subject: [Faith-talk] beings to determine whether they are “persons.”

I recently found the following article and thought it would be worth discussion.  Personally I think Peter Singer being called a bioethasist would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive.  I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

 

bigotry , disabled , national council on disability , peter singer 

 

 

May 11, 2015 (NationalReview.com) -- Peter Singer is a bigot. Rather than believing in universal human equality, he would invidiously measure the capacities of human 

beings to determine whether they are “persons.”

Those with insufficient capacities, are to be deemed human “non-persons,” are to be viewed of lesser moral value, and hence, potentially subject to both killing and 

objectification for harvesting, medical experimentation, etc.

He also supports health care rationing based on quality of life. This blatant medical discrimination would victimize babies born with severe disabilities–whose care, 

Singer argues, should not be paid by national health insurance schemes.

The National Council on Disability is not amused. From its press release:

 

On Sunday April 16, contentious Princeton Professor Peter Singer, once again argued that it is “reasonable” for the government or private insurance companies to deny 

treatment to infants with disabilities. Singer’s remarks were made on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” which is broadcast on New York’s AM 970 and Philadelphia 990 

AM.

In the interview, which was perhaps ironically conducted as part of a press tour Singer is currently on promoting his new book about charities, “The Most Good You 

Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically,” the professor advocated the shocking claim that health care laws like the Affordable Care 

Act should be more overt about rationing and that we should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”

“Mr. Charity” then makes an uncharitable utilitarian assertion:

 

Without offering any concrete measure on how quality of life could or should be determined, Singer admitted, “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.”

The NDC makes a point about Singer that is also lost to the media slavishly pushing assisted suicide/euthanasia, which also threatens the lives and bodily integrity 

of people with disabilities:

 

Increasingly, negative predictions of quality of life have little to do with the actual life experiences of people with disabilities. People with disabilities 

commonly report more satisfaction with their lives than others might expect. Though it might surprise Singer and those with limited imaginations, even people with 

disabilities who encounter obstacles, prejudice, and discrimination, derive satisfaction and pleasure from their lives.

Singer is something of the ethicist in chief for such liberal organs as the New York Times and leftist columnists like Nicholas Kristof. That says a lot about 

liberal thinking, it seems to me.

The Left talks a good game of equality, but when it comes to people with disabilities (among other categories of human life), they don’t really mean it. Indeed, when 

they support Peter Singer, they validate invidious quality-of-life bigotry.

Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.

 Print Article

 Email Friend

 Back to Top

 View article on LifeSiteNews.com

_______________________________________________
Faith-talk mailing list
Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Faith-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/heavens4real%40gmail.com