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

[Brandon A. Olivares]

Yeah this guy is pretty ridiculous, but I think the article loses all credibility when it lumps all liberals in with him and his ideology. I myself am liberal and know many others who are as well, and I don’t know even one who would support such a ridiculous view. It’s one, singular man who is making a sickening statement; it doesn’t have to be made into a political issue. That is really low for the writer of this article to do.


---
Peace,
Brandon

Awaken To Silence <http://www.awakentosilence.org/>: Awaken To The Silence That Has Always Been Within You

Facebook: AwakenToSilence <https://www.facebook.com/awakentosilence>
Twitter: @awakentosilence <https://twitter.com/awakentosilence>
Tumblr: awakentosilence.tumblr.com <http://awakentosilence.tumblr.com/>
> On May 13, 2015, at 3:03 AM, Philip Blackmer via Faith-talk <faith-talk at nfbnet.org> wrote:
> 
> 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/programmer2188%40gmail.com