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

Sun May 17 18:14:54 UTC 2015

Hello
This is a topic that has come up now and again for many years.  The sad 
thing is that each time it comes up more people give it thought and more 
power.  However I think it is very wrong thinking from people who just look 
at numbers like medical expenses.  Someone back in the late 70's made a list 
of disabilities that should have rationed health care and one of them was 
the brittle bone disease I was born with so I watched to see what had 
happened and gladly there has been no rationing and I've been healed of most 
of the acute phases of the disease.  Besides the medical community is not in 
charge of when people will take their last breath.  That's up to God.  They 
said I'd never live past 50 and I'm 61.  And as far as >People with zero 
value> life I'veseen severely disabled folks who would appear to not be able 
to make contributionsbut yet even tough one they might have an adult body 
with a 10 month old mind and abilities they could still worship, clearly 
having some connection with God and isn't that the purpose why we are here? 
To serve God?  At least that is how I view things.
Maureen

-----Original Message----- 
From: Philip Blackmer via Faith-talk
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2015 2:03 AM
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/maureensmusic%40comcast.net 