Peter Singer Sings “Bioethics”

Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946. Currently, he is a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Singer believes in many circumstances it is morally justifiable to . . .

Background

Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946. Currently, he is a Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University. Singer taught at the University of Oxford, New York University, University of Colorado, University of California, and La Trobe University. He is the author of many books. The notable works include Practical Ethics (1979), Rethinking Life and Death (1995), and Animal Liberation (1975). Singer is also the author of a significant article on ethics in Encyclopedia Britannica. One of his most quoted lines is from his work Taking life: Abortion, in Practical Ethics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 123:

… Now it must be admitted that these arguments apply to the newborn baby as much as to the fetus. A week-old baby is not a rational and self-conscious being; and there are many nonhuman animals whose rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, capacity to feel, and so on, exceed that of a human baby a week, a month, or even a year old. If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value that the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee. … In thinking about this matter we should put aside feelings based on the small, helpless and - sometimes - cute appearance of human infants. To think that the lives of infants are of special value because infants are small and cute is on a par with thinking that a baby seal, with its soft white fur coat and large round eyes deserves greater protection than a whale which lacks these attributes. Nor can the helplessness or the innocence of the infant homo sapiens be a ground for preferring it to the equally helpless and innocent fetal homo sapiens.

His defenders say that the preceding statement is “out of context,” thereby requiring volumes of work to make such a statement seem acceptable.

Singer arrived at Princeton University in September 1999 to take up his new position as a Professor of Bioethics. Got that—bio-ethics! There were protests, but since some detractors were pro-lifers, the detestable mainstream ignored them. Steve Forbes, an alma mater of Princeton, threatened to cut off donations.

Analysis

Singer’s philosophy (for lack of a better word) concerns animal rights that trump human rights. Still, his defenders say those who disagree are missing the “whole picture.” Singer and his defenders believe they have compassion for the animals, and the pro-people crowd “do not care” that the creatures experience death and suffering when subject to experiments. Singer and his defenders are typical intellectual giants with pea brains who can think up all kinds of words and logic to promote their agenda. Briefly, Singer believes it is morally (!) justifiable to end the life of a human being in many circumstances.

Indeed, dealing with the terminally ill is a tricky thing to deal with, mainly when a person is genuinely in a completely vegetative state. One would like to think that the professional medical field will help loved ones understand when truly there is no hope for survival. But that is now ponderable with the Hippocratic Oath relegated to a vestigial remnant.¹ What is most difficult for this author to accept is Singer’s idea that it is “acceptable” for parents to end the life of a severely deformed infant. Some people have written that such practices are equivalent to the eugenics movement and worse.

Singer has a plan, and his views foment emotion, which is one of his goals. People will buy his books and read his complete works through this process. Do Singer and his defenders think that they are helping humanity? The terrible truth is yes. This thinking consists of the twisted “logic” that people who are not perfect suffer, and their death will end this suffering. The end of the life of those who are “defective” then supposedly makes the life of others who are not suffering “better.”  

As a matter of historical background, after the Harvard Brain Death Committee report of 1968, most have adopted the condition of permanent loss of all brain function as the basis for declaring a person legally dead. Previously the medical community held that death occurred when the heart stopped beating. This redefinition coincided with the advent of organ transplants (Dr. Christiaan Barnard performed the first successful heart transplant nine months earlier). Some doctors who deal with “brain-dead” patients do not believe they are dead. As such, Singer says we are harvesting organs from alive people. So, he thinks the only course of action is to admit that all lives are not equally valuable. 

One group for whom this philosophy has immediate consequences is severely deformed newborns. Indeed, there are situations where the deformity is heinous, and even some in the pro-life camp would require counsel. However, Singer’s thought process, a well-lubricated pro-death slippery slope, is the antithesis of pro-life.

It gets worse. Singer believes that belonging to humanity does not guarantee equal treatment. His twisted “logic” concerns the definition of a “person.” Specifically, a person is a being with “rationality, self-consciousness, autonomy, ability to feel pleasure and pain et cetera, and, critically, an awareness of itself as existing over time.” So, in that mindset, neither a fetus nor a coma patient is a “person.” Singer writes, “Since no fetus is a person, no fetus has the same claim to life as a person.” Therefore, in the Singer book of ethics, a newly born baby cannot be a person since it is neither rational nor autonomous and has no sense of a future (a potential person). Thus, killing a newborn does not carry the same moral weight as killing an adult or an older child. It is also “logical” to conclude that the great apes must be “partial persons.”

Without a doubt, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) love Singer since he writes in Practical Ethics, p. 118:

Those who protest against abortion but done regularly on the bodies of chickens, pigs, and calves show only a biased concern for the lives of members of their own species... On any fair comparison of morally relevant characteristics, like rationality, self-consciousness, awareness, autonomy, pleasure, pain, and so on, the calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy.

Singer said in a 2001 book review that humans and animals could have “mutually satisfying” sexual relationships.² Think about that when we realize the pro-death cult gets its talking points; from the works of Peter Singer.

Hegelian Dialect

The above is in sync with the Hegelian Dialect of collective thought based on a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.³ The consensus process is the practical application of differing or opposing views (thesis and antithesis). Opposite views change toward an intended thought process (synthesis). Under the dialectical method, Singer represents the anthesis (abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia). Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her “catholic” friends can champion partial-birth abortion with no mental reservation or hesitation. Get the eye and anti-itch ear drops ready for this antithesis video:

Now the quintessential example of the thesis is Mother Teresa. She shows us the mercy of the pro-life position.

Between the above two positions, we have the synthesis. Here, people debate when the moment when human life starts. In modern times, the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case (1973) fueled the ongoing whirlwind of life in a battle with death (choice). Here, we witness such things as pro-abortion Nancy Pelosi (anthesis) meeting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the pro-life “Bishop of Rome” and “leader” of the Catholic Church (should be thesis).⁴ Thus, behold the spectacle of the quintessential example of the “stacked dialectic synthesis.” ⁵

Noticeably absent from the above synthesis video are certain Catholic traditions and customs. When dignitaries have an audience with a Pope, they genuflect on the left knee and kiss the Ring of Peter upon entry. Furthermore, women would wear a head covering such as a black chapel veil.

The above notwithstanding, Borgolio’s disdain of Catholic customs and traditions (as well as those of us who are traditionalists) enables Pelosi and the rest of the reincarnated Illuminati to dispense with such “trivial” things and the teachings about abortion. All this is just fine with most of the remaining “leadership.” Except for the few faithful Catholic hierarchies like Archbishop Vigano, who lives in hiding for fear of his life, the “environment” and collectivism take precedence over the seemingly trivial matter of saving souls. For example, The Vatican has betrayed the faithful in China.

With the above backdrop, seeing Borgilio and Pelosi without masks is a profound disappointment. Superspreaders! They need to get with the program to set the example—cough, cough.

Singer Sings Forced Jabs

Passionate Plea

For readers who have come to this point in this treatise, know where your author stands. Any further consideration by those in the antithesis crowd is a virtual impossibility. A case in point is a young lady who said she did not vote for Trump because “he would have taken away my birth control pills.”

There are plenty of people your author knows who feel abortion is acceptable for any reason up to some malleable point in gestation (synthesis). This “middle” ⁶ typically consists of those who are otherwise fiscally conservative or libertarian. Therefore, the pablum that abortion vs. life is strictly a “liberal vs. conservative” mantra is just another red herring, a distraction.

Those on the thesis side of the discussion would be enamored with consideration from the synthesis camp. For a compromise, let us consider our tax dollars that go to this anti-life pogrom. Let us join in the effort to tell our representatives to prevent the Hyde Amendment from going into the dustbin of history. Furthermore, this same creepy fiscal feeling applies to Fred’s insurance policy dollars going to abortion.

Lastly, this same creepy fiscal feeling applies to the other post-modern Frankenstein-like fad dealing with gender. That is, the fake science crapola called gender reassignment surgery.

Cogent author and publisher, Frederick R. Smith

1. Like the medical profession’s jettisoning the Hippocratic Oath, the Catholic Church ditched the Oath Against Modernism.

2. Peter Singer Supports Vivisection: Why Are You Surprised?

3. Also see Frederick R. Smith Speaks, Demented Delphi, and Creepy Consensus.

4. To make this work out to be an excellent example of thesis, perhaps Borgolio needs a boost with a reincarnated Mother Theresa to be the current pro-life gold standard.

5. “Stacked dialectic synthesis,” meaning the thesis side of this example, has, with some exceptions, participated in the post-modern Kool-Aid TM drink fest.

6. Of course, we know being to the extreme on any issue can be a bad thing. Moderation, humility, consideration, charity, compassion, and clear thinking can pave the way to a compelling society.