If Peter Singer, one of the world’s most famous ethicists, were a high school teacher his controversial views would make him unemployable. The fact that he favors granting “rights” to apes, believes that bestiality is not “an offence to our status and dignity as human beings”, and argues that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all." would naturally raise parental concerns about this “educator.” Singer, though, isn’t a secondary school teacher but a professor of bioethics at Princeton. The difference is that he must wait at least three months after their high school graduation to indoctrinate America’s impressionable youth.
Such was the case last week, when Singer took thirteen of his students in his Ethical Choices" freshman seminar to a neonatal intensive care unit at a university hospital:
Singer had brought his students to the ward to show them the living faces of a medical debate featured prominently in his scholarship and his seminar: whether it is ethical to end an infant's life when medical data predict she has a low chance of surviving.
The students, excited as they entered the hospital, turned somber as they walked through the ward. Other infants were similarly surrounded by life support machines, and the philosophical debates previously held in class had become a stunning reality.
"Everyone came in very bouncy and energetic, and I thought, 'Wow, these people have no idea what they're getting into,'" said Jennifer Calise, a young mother cradling her one-year-old daughter, a former ward patient who had come for a checkup. "Now they all look a little shell-shocked."
Born 14 weeks premature, the 2-hour-old infant the class had come upon had a slim chance of surviving, let alone growing up without mental and physical impairments. Because of these defects, Singer argues the infant's parents should be able to decide whether to shut off her life-support machines and end her life. That claim, based on a belief that a young baby is not self-aware, has generated widespread controversy across the world.
Actually, what has drawn controversy is Singer’s claim that a parent should be able to kill a newborn, whether healthy or ill, for any reason at all.
Singer's has stirred much controversy with these views, with some groups labeling him a "baby-killer." Singer responds by saying that societies throughout history have used selective infanticide for the greater good.
Singer also refuses to equate killing newborns with killing adults, saying newborns are not self-aware and therefore different from adult humans and animals worthy of protection.
Some of Singer's students disagree with these views.
Consider for a moment this claim being made by a professor of bioethics at one of the most prestigious universities in our country: (a) there is nothing wrong with killing one’s newborn child but (b) its unethical to do the same to the family pet. Singer’s position is unconscionable. But the fact that only some of the thirteen Ivy League students disagree with this evil position is even more troubling.
Fortunately, Singer himself is a fraud. Not only does he not live by the ethical system he proposes, he doesn’t even make an attempt to do so – nor does he apologize for his hypocrisy. Singer knows that controversy sells and even though he considers it immoral for Americans to live on more than $30,000 a year, he’s quite content to continue living an upper-middle class lifestyle.
What makes Singer dangerous, though, is that he's not only taken seriously by his peers but that he is in a position of influence over eighteen year old students. Because his views are coated with a veneer of respectability, they will undoubtedly be adopted by his more morally impressionable students. Unlike their mentor, they may actually have the courage to live by these evil convictions.
When newborns start showing up in the dumpsters of Princeton, NJ we shouldn’t be shocked. It will simply be the result of Dr. Death's students applying their Ivy-league educations.
(HT: Richard Hanchett)
1
I haven't read much Singer, but does he actually advocate killing newborns? Or does he merely refuse to equate killing a newborn with killing an adult? The two are not the same thing. It is entirely possible to believe that both are wrong, but that one is more egregious than the other.
And, honestly, I'm not ready to dismiss the decision to turn off life support out-of-hand. Allowing someone to die naturally is not the same thing as killing them. Has it occurred to you that keeping such badly deformed premies and newborns alive by extensive artificial means is just as much violating God's will as going to great lengths to kill them would be?
posted on 11.18.2004 12:21 AM2
Tgirsch,
I haven't read much Singer, but does he actually advocate killing newborns? Or does he merely refuse to equate killing a newborn with killing an adult? The two are not the same thing. It is entirely possible to believe that both are wrong, but that one is more egregious than the other.
I’m not sure why killing a newborn would be any less egregious than killing an adult but as for Singer, his position is:
The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.And, honestly, I'm not ready to dismiss the decision to turn off life support out-of-hand. Allowing someone to die naturally is not the same thing as killing them. Has it occurred to you that keeping such badly deformed premies and newborns alive by extensive artificial means is just as much violating God's will as going to great lengths to kill them would be?
It depends on the likelihood that they will recover. Turning off life support on a preemie that cannot and will not ever be able to live without such artificial means is certainly different than pulling the plug because the kid will have to be in special ed when he gets older.
posted on 11.18.2004 12:30 AM3
Fr. Neuhaus has written an interesting account of his experience debating Dr. Singer. It can be read at http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0202/public.html
I think Neuhaus does a very good job of explaining exactly why Christians find Singer's philosophy of ethics so repulsive.
4
I haven't read much Singer, but does he actually advocate killing newborns? Or does he merely refuse to equate killing a newborn with killing an adult? The two are not the same thing. It is entirely possible to believe that both are wrong, but that one is more egregious than the other.
Tom--Throughout history there have been times when it was thought less egregious to kill a black, a Jew, a woman, a Christian, a disabled person, or a homosexual (I could go on). If someone were to subsititute the newborn in your statement with one of the above, I assume you would be horrified, and rightly so. I always understood that liberals thought societies should be judged by how they treat there most vulnerable citizens. I am sorry to see I was mistaken, that sentiment was one of the few things I found good about liberalism.
posted on 11.18.2004 6:20 AM5
Turning off life support on a preemie that cannot and will not ever be able to live without such artificial means is certainly different than pulling the plug because the kid will have to be in special ed when he gets older.
Amen.
posted on 11.18.2004 9:00 AM6
I just cannot imagine how someone could advocate killing babies. Someone asked if keeping these poor children alive on life support would violate God's will. It seems to me that God is perfectly able to take them if he so chooses.
Are we going to go from killing the unborn, to killing the newborn, to killing anyone that some members of society deem undesirable. How about the retarded, handicapped, terminally ill, maybe even the unproductive members of our society? Should they be eliminated? If newborn infants can be killed, why not these others?
It's all very chilling.
posted on 11.18.2004 9:20 AM7
Joe:
I’m not sure why killing a newborn would be any less egregious than killing an adult.As with all things, it depends on the circumstances surrounding the killing. I'm not ready to say with certainty that euthanasia is never acceptable. If I learned that my wife was pregnant with a child who was blind, deaf, and autistic, I would have to give serious consideration to ending that life before it ever develops self-awareness, and not because of any inconvenience to me. You may not agree, but some of us believe that no life may in some cases be preferable to a miserable life.
Can such a philosophy be abused? Of course it can. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss it out of hand.
And by the way, I suspect you would argue that killing a newborn is more egregious than killing an adult, because down in your neck of the woods you kill adults all the time, and hardly blink when you do it.
Turning off life support on a preemie that cannot and will not ever be able to live without such artificial means is certainly different than pulling the plug because the kid will have to be in special ed when he gets older.The problem is, there's a whole lot of gray area in between, and some people may not draw the line in the same place you do.
Rob Smith:
Throughout history there have been times when it was thought less egregious to kill a black, a Jew, a woman, a Christian, a disabled person, or a homosexual (I could go on). If someone were to subsititute the newborn in your statement with one of the above, I assume you would be horrified, and rightly so.Except that in all of your cases (with the possible exception of the "disabled person") the person in question is self-aware. And as I have already pointed out, the egregiousness of killing a newborn or preborn depends greatly upon the reasons for doing so. Let me be absolutely clear about this: I do not advocate killing newborns just for the hell of it, or just to avoid minor inconvenience. I'm just not willing to go so far as Joe and say that there's never a good reason for doing so.
I always understood that liberals thought societies should be judged by how they treat there most vulnerable citizens.That remains true, and nothing about what I've said changes that. Death with dignity remains a liberal concern, as does preventing the state from getting to decide who lives or dies. Nothing about euthanasia is inconsistent with liberal ideals. posted on 11.18.2004 10:16 AM
8
Mr. Carter:
You wrote:
I’m not sure why killing a newborn would be any less egregious than killing an adult.
While I agree with you largely on opposing much of what you present Singer as saying (I haven't fact checked it), I can offer one reason that applies in a large number of circumstances:
Adults support other members of society, and therefore killing an adult who supports other members of society not only wrongs the adult, but tangibly harms those whom that adult supported.
posted on 11.18.2004 11:01 AM9
. If I learned that my wife was pregnant with a child who was blind, deaf, and autistic, I would have to give serious consideration to ending that life before it ever develops self-awareness, and not because of any inconvenience to me. You may not agree, but some of us believe that no life may in some cases be preferable to a miserable life.
posted on 11.18.2004 11:03 AM