January 27, 2013

Peter Singer's Infanticide at Princeton University

 
 
There is some trivia about Princeton University that many people are not aware of. If I ask someone, "Did you know that Princeton University has helped to support infanticide and bestiality for the past 14 years?" - there is usually a look of disbelief. Many Americans have a difficult time accepting the fact that a practicing professor at Princeton University, Peter Singer, would be able to promote such activities as infanticide and zoophilia, also known as bestiality, there at that prestigious institution. This goes to show how much America has changed and how out of touch many people are with these changes. My father is a Princeton alumnus of 1953, who regularly receives the PAW alumni news, but he is neither familiar with Singer nor aware of the passionate protests that surrounded his appointment.

The motto of Princeton is "Under God's Power She Flourishes", and, obviously, the moral code of Princeton today is much different from the theistic moral code envisioned by its founders. The low moral condition of this Ivy League university helps to underscore that the US is experiencing a severe moral crisis of values in this generation. Singer is considered a distinguished Ira W. DeCamp Professor at Princeton and has been serving there for 14 years. In a 2009 Daily Princetonian article, "Peter Singer reflects on a decade at Princeton", the official opinion of the leadership at the university was noted: "Despite the controversy, those responsible for hiring Singer stand by their choice."

The extreme ethical opinions Singer holds are not private but are intrinsic to his formal academic teaching. Thus, it's not just Singer who is promoting infanticide and bestiality, but Princeton University is also promoting these examples of dehumanizing and extreme moral relativism. How did Princeton University come to the place where it helps to promote such illegal activities? A broad look at history helps to explain how.

I've noticed that some secular atheists become extremely offended and upset when you use words such as "promoting" and "infanticide" as though I am offering some types of misnomers. I'm not. We have dictionaries to help us understand the objective definitions of words and how they should be used in society. And we have quotes by individuals which can be matched against such definitions. The sad irony of "secular humanism" is that it produces a dehumanized society. This fact is uncomfortable, but true.

Outline

I. Definitions
II. Peter Singer quotes in context
III. Criminality of infanticide and bestiality in the US
IV. Destructiveness of moral relativism in history
V. Conclusion

I. Definitions

Webster's definition of "promotion"

1: the act or fact of being raised in position or rank : preferment

2: the act of furthering the growth or development of something; especially : the furtherance of the acceptance and sale of merchandise through advertising, publicity, or discounting

Peter Singer quotes in context

The plain meanings of Peter Singer quotes in the context of his book Practical Ethics and in interviews (as we'll see) reveal that he affirms that medical "infanticide" is ethically "permissible" with regard to the happiness of others. Because legal, medical infanticide is something that would necessarily have to be condoned by the state and officially institutionalized as a medical convention, it is quite appropriate to say that Singer is promoting this activity.

In affirming that Princeton University stands by the controversial teachings of Peter Singer without reservation, and continues to hold him in high esteem as a professor, Princeton is helping to promote the views and opinions of Singer on a vast scale as an educator.  As mentioned, Singer's extreme views are intrinsic to his academic lessons, they are not just personal.

Webster's definition of "infanticide"

1: the killing of an infant

2: [Late Latin infanticida, from Latin infant-, infans + -i- + -cida -cide] : one who kills an infant

As you can see, the definition of infanticide is very general. It does not address whether or not the act is considered murder or whether or not an infant is considered a person. Thus, it's wide scope allows its use with regard to all these various nuances.

II. Peter Singer quotes in context

The next question is, "Does Peter Singer actually advocate the killing of infants?" Yes, and in the most straightforward manner possible. There is no misconstruing, no taking words out of context. Read for yourself.  In an interview FAQ of Peter Singer published by Princeton, there is a section entitled, "The Sanctity of Human Life" in which Singer clearly offers why he believes human life is not in any way sacred and why killing a human infant is morally acceptable in his view:

Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future.  As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.  That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do.  It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.

Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment.  That will often ensure that the baby dies.  My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely."

Notice that infanticide is not considered murder in Singer's view if the newborn is not considered a person. Singer calls such killings "terrible" but not immoral.  Singer states that taking a baby's life may be considered more humane than letting it live in certain cases.

Scott Klusendorf, Director of Bio-Ethics at Stand to Reason, describes Singer's arguments for infanticide as a "bold defense" of infanticide.  Klusendorf quotes Practical Ethics where Singer specifically uses the word infanticide and describes under what specific considerations he would consider it ethically viable: “We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.” (p.154 per Google Books version) Singer describes how subjective happiness should be used as a basis for such decisions: “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed." For those secularists who become incensed when people label Singer as "pro-infanticide" consider what he just stated. Promoting strict conditions for permissible infanticide is promoting infanticide under strict conditions.

A number of questions arise with regard to Singer's views. For example, "Who has the authority and right to decide when to take a human life and why?" Using subjective qualifications such as the overall happiness is obviously open for abuse. Other questions, "Why is there an urgent need to change the historical definition of a human person?" and "What objective basis does Singer offer as a reason for requiring this change and helping to create a dehumanizing society?" I've pointed out why Singer's logic and approach towards ethics are inherently flawed in another article.

III. Criminality of infanticide and bestiality in the US

With respect to present law, bestiality is illegal in most US states. But Singer does not find it morally objectionable, as noted when Singer describes the sexual advances of an orangutan on a woman: "The potential violence of the orangutan's come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not." His view is based on a secular concept known as "speciesism" and quotes in context clearly confirm his position.

With respect to historical laws, the Infanticide Acts of 1922 in England and 1939 in Ireland abolished the death penalty for women who killed their newborns because emotional and psychological problems were considered to be heightened while giving birth.

In the history of the US, the US Constitution has always been considered to be a protection to any living human being. However, abortion practices led to a clarification regarding infants, The Born Alive Act came into law in 2002, as noted:

"In 1999 a gruesome discovery was made that an IL hospital was shelving babies to die in a soiled utility room who had survived their abortions.
 
The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act was introduced in 2000 to provide legal protection to all born babies, wanted or not, including the right to medical care. In 2002, Born Alive passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and by overwhelming voice vote in the House. On August 5, President George W. Bush signed the bill into law."

Barack Obama has opposed the Induced Infant Liability Act and has repeatedly voted against requirements and restrictions intended to stop what opponents label "born alive" abortions. He also voted against the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and, guess what, one of the contingencies of the NDAA document that Obama signed allowed for bestiality in the US military to become legally acceptable. The fact that the US population voted such a man into presidency for a second term underscores the fact that the US truly is in a state of moral decay.

The antiabortion group Susan B. Anthony List released a video with a testimony from failed-abortion survivor Melissa Ohden, who said, “I was aborted and my body discarded like I didn’t exist. But a nurse heard me crying and cared enough to save my life.” Her living testimony helps to put this issue into perspective.



Though there is an emotional aspect to hearing a woman designated for infanticide speak out, according to present US law and the Born Alive Act, it's not merely an emotional issue, it's very much a legal one as well. It is technically illegal to kill a newly born human in the US today and therefore this act is legally defined as murder:

Webster's definition of "murder"

1. murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought  

That is a common-usage definition of murder. The legal definition of murder specifically focuses on the legality or illegality of the act.

1. According to the legal definition of murder and homicide, a key question is whether or not a specific act of killing is legal.

2. It is presently illegal in the US to either passively allow an infant to die or to actively take measures to kill a living infant.

3. No matter how you define it, Peter Singer is advocating either actively or passively taking the life of an infant.

4. Therefore, according to the legal definition of murder and homicide, Peter Singer is advocating murder.

The following is a key aspect regarding the legal definition of murder in the US:

 
"A person commits the crime of murder if with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or of another person, or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another person."
 
The following is a key aspect regarding the legal definition of murder in Canada:
 

 
"A person commits culpable homicide when that person causes the death of another human being:

    by means of an unlawful act;
    by criminal negligence;
    by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do anything that causes the death of that human being;


if that human being is a child or sick person, by willfully frightening that human being."

In Singer's home country Australia, his views and teachings also advocate murder, according to the legal definition of murder in Australia:

"The basic principle of murder involves two overarching components: the act or omission causing death (actus reus), as well as intention and recklessness (mens rea)."

Peter Singer has been considered an antinatalist. The definition of Antinatalism is the philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism.

Whether you want to call it Antinatalism, infanticide, child euthanasia or humanitarian mercy killing, what Singer and Princeton are promoting is illegal and is technically murder. It is not legal today in the US to take an infants life, no matter how kind your intentions may be. Therefore, both Singer and Princeton University are technically promoting murder.

IV. Destructiveness of moral relativism in history

The claim that a living, breathing human being is not necessarily a person is an extreme position. The claim that a living, breathing human being may be killed because it is not a person is an extreme form of moral relativism. This is true even if the reasoning behind such claims and teachings is couched in humanitarian rhetoric. The claim that sex with animals is morally and ethically acceptable is also an example of extreme moral relativism. A theistic bioethicist, Nigel M. de S. Cameron, Ph.D.,  described a 2002 debate with Singer and stated, "He tended to play down his radicalism, and only under questioning did it become clear. " Princeton did not organize the event, but “The Center for Bioethics and Culture” together with the “Life Legal Defense Foundation" were instrumental in doing so. As noted, "The crowd heavily favored the less controversial viewpoint that Cameron defended. His condemnation of legal euthanasia in Netherlands and in the state of Oregon was met with applause."

America once flourished, as the Princeton motto offers, because America in many respects was founded based on time-tested and pure theistic ideas and principles. Extreme moral relativism, however, is destructive to society and will inevitably lead towards the establishment of a totalitarian state. There are logical reasons why this is so. And, though correspondence does not necessarily imply causation, it may be pointed out that the US was once a top, flourishing economic nation and presently the US is not even in the top ten list of the most prosperous countries in the world.

V. Conclusion
 
The US seems to be in state of moral crisis. So, how did Princeton University and society in general come to the place where it helps to promote such dehumanizing and illegal activities?  It's a fact that there are historical cycles of moral righteousness and moral decline and that the types of practices that Princeton is promoting today are the same types of practices that morally debased Canaan had practiced in ancient history. They also practiced bestiality and infanticide. When it comes to basic questions about philosophy and life, there is nothing really new under the sun. And, according to the big picture of history, America is experiencing the same kind of moral crisis ancient cultures have experienced when they have rejected the wisdom of the knowledge of God.
 
The paradox of transcendent reality is that we cannot see it, yet, there is a lot of evidence that it not only exists, but that the physical universe is completely dependent upon this unseen transcendent reality. This is evident when you objectively consider the facts regarding quantum mechanics, the organizing principle of the universe, the fact that time and the universe had a beginning. These are some of the scientific and logical issues that cannot be adequately and logically reconciled based upon a materialist worldview. The existence of a transcendent reality offers a more logical and viable explanation than a materialistic one. Perhaps this is why top secular academicians tend to eschew debate with knowledgeable theists and tend to run in the opposite direction when a debate challenge is offered.

For the secularists who become so offended by the word "infanticide" it may be helpful to ask yourselves why you become so offended. If there is no sacred human exceptionalism, as Singer offers, then why get upset? Fish kill and eat other fish. Mammals will often kill and eat other mammals and no one seems to mind. But, if this does make you deeply upset,  consider the possibility that humans do actually have a very unique moral situation and a unique moral reference point. Maybe objective values do exist after all and there is a reason why you sense that the taking of an innocent human life is wrong after all. In that case, consider what the existence of objective moral truth implies. Briefly perusing through the faculty blogs of Princeton, I noticed there are no blogs at Princeton devoted to philosophy by which the ideas of Peter Singer might be challenged in an open forum. This is not surprising. If anyone would like to publicly discuss or debate the ideas mentioned at my blog, I welcome it.

(article updated 03/11/13)

Related Posts:

Peter Singer's Flawed Logic on Ethics

Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague

Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life

Tags: troubling trivia of US moral condition, Peter singer quotes on infanticide and bestiality, Singer apologist for infanticide, Singer's extreme moral relativism, Peter Singer pro-infanticide, Princeton infanticide, The moral decline of the US, America's moral crisis, historical cycles of moral highs and lows, dehumanizing moral relativism, Nigel M. de S. Cameron debate with Singer, legal definition of murder in US, Singer: killing of infants justified based on perceived need for future happiness in the family

33 comments:

  1. Great... You dragged the discussion about Singer to TWO different posts and now you made an entire article...

    I will answer a couple of your questions here and repost my comment from a neighboring thread.

    R:For the secularists who seem to become so offended by the word "infanticide" it may be helpful to ask yourselves why you become so offended.

    Because some people actually CARE about what is true. I do not hold any attachement to Singer, however, I will not stand idly and watch baseless slander.

    R:If we are all no more or less than other animals and human life is not sacred in a transcendent sense, then why get upset?

    Because I care about human beings in a non-transcendent sense. Because human beings are not JUST animals. Because we have empathy, intelligence, emotions and so on.

    And you are a moral monster for not seeing ANY value in human life without a god.

    R:Yes, I understand the differences between the definitions of those words.

    Good, you understand those are two different things. Promoting infanticide and promoting the principles of euthanasia are two distinct things that you CANNOT USE AS SYNONYMS. The same way you do not call a soldier a killer just because part of their duty is to stop the enemy including by killing. Calling a proponent of child euthanasia as a proponent of infanticide is just as dishonest as calling a soldier a killer.

    Now, let us look at the quote from Singer and help your malfunctionning brain to understand basic reading comprehension:

    "Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies."

    In this quote Singer speaks about cases when the child s destiny is already sealed. Due to the grave state of the child s health, it is concluded by the doctors and parents that the child WILL NOT SURVIVE. Only then the doctors will cut the child off life-support. That is a STANDARD medical procedure.

    So what is the stance of Singer?

    "My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely"

    Translation for the impaired: instead of letting the baby suffer several hours before its IMMINENT death, the human thing to do would be to relieve their suffering. Capiche?

    R:Do you understand that it is technically illegal in the US to kill a living infant whether or not you call it infanticide or euthanasia?

    Yes, euthanasia and infanticide is illegal in the USA. And you are an idiot for not understanding that withholding life support is NOT infanticide or euthanasia.

    R:Do you understand that you are defending the opinions of someone who is promoting what is presently an illegal act, something defined as murder?

    I understand that you are an idiot, Rick. It has NOTHING to do with this being illegal or legal. Voting for blacks and women also used to be illegal. Something being illegal does not automatically make it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Great... You dragged the discussion about Singer to TWO different posts and now you made an entire article...

      - Yes, just as I mentioned in a previous comment post (January 25), your denial on this subject is so strong that it did seem to justify yet another article focusing on infanticide:

      "Your denial is quite strong on this issue. Perhaps this is another good subject for an article."

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/huge-public-response-for-waiter-who.html?showComment=1359119324129#c4845733856575562518

      >Promoting infanticide and promoting the principles of euthanasia are two distinct things that you CANNOT USE AS SYNONYMS.

      - I have never used them as synonyms.

      > Due to the grave state of the child s health, it is concluded by the doctors and parents that the child WILL NOT SURVIVE.

      - You are conflating "will not" with "not meant to" survive, or "maybe would not" survive.

      Why do you believe the personnel in the hospital mentioned in the above video clip felt justified to leave so many infants to die? That was one interesting video by on of those infants who wasn't meant to survive.

      >Yes, euthanasia and infanticide is illegal in the USA.

      - You have been defending Singer's views supporting illegal actions. Singer claims that actively killing a baby is justified on occasion, as outlined in the quote provided in the article.

      >I understand that you are an idiot, Rick.

      - When you have no valid replies, trot out the ad hom attacks. Great, and thanks for another good example of why not to be an atheist.

      Delete
    2. R:I have never used them as synonyms.

      Then you acknowledge the fact you are a liar. Singer has never promoted infanticide.

      R:You are conflating "will not" with "not meant to" survive, or "maybe would not" survive.

      And you are still an ignorant idiot. Singer only is saying that doomed children should not be left to suffer a slow a painful death.

      R:Why do you believe the personnel in the hospital mentioned in the above video clip felt justified to leave so many infants to die?

      In 99.9999% of such cases a baby CANNOT survive. Doctors do not claim they can peform miracles. There is no meaning in trying to revive a patient that will inevitably die in a couple of hours.

      R:That was one interesting video by on of those infants who wasn't meant to survive.

      I have zero trust in you or in that video clip.

      R:You have been defending Singer's views supporting illegal actions.

      Red herring. We are talking about morality, not about what is legal. I have already pointed this out in my previous post.

      R:Singer claims that actively killing a baby is justified on occasion, as outlined in the quote provided in the article.

      Yes, and you are still a liar because you admitted you know the difference between infanticide and child euthanasia, but you still accuse Singer of the same thing.

      R:When you have no valid replies, trot out the ad hom attacks. Great, and thanks for another good example of why not to be an atheist.

      Your idiocy, your reading comprehension problems, your dishonesty, your insults and your slander made my patience reach its limit. All my accusations are illustrated by yourself in your blog.

      You are also a liar, by saying I do not offer valid replies. I have pointed out that your invoking the legal aspect is a red herring. You know that what is moral is not always legal.

      I might be in the wrong by calling your an idiot, but I am a human being and I cannot be perfect. And your mental block to acknowledge reality is frustrating.

      And atheism has nothing to do with it. You also know it perfectly well.

      Delete
    3. P.S. Your claim on cyles of is also bogus as it was pointed out to you numerous times. The sole fact that violence is down per capita completely undermines your theory.

      Delete
    4. >Singer has never promoted infanticide.

      1. Do I need to make Venn diagrams or something so you can possibly understand that word definition have overlapping meaning without necessarily being synonyms?

      The Webster definition of infanticide is "the killing of an infant"

      Singer uses the exact same verb to describe his ethics: "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person..."

      The Webster's definition of infanticide does not qualify the emotions or intention of the killer or the emotions and condition of the infant. Those are not even mentioned.

      This applies not only to the definition of infanticide but also the legality of the act.

      It does not matter what it is called or how it is done. Even if there is plenty of anesthesia and the baby dies with a big smile on its face, the killing of an infant in the US is illegal.

      Singer advocates, "taking active steps to end the baby’s life" in certain cases, as referenced in the above article. That is illegal, no matter what kind of terminology you want to couch it in.

      Your denial of these two points seems to be so huge that there is nothing possible I could write to enlighten you. Perhaps a Venn diagram would help. I don't know.

      >Red herring. We are talking about morality, not about what is legal.

      - breaking the law or advocating the breaking of the law is definitely a moral and ethical issue. Quite sad that Princeton stands for illegal and dehumanizing positions today.

      >You are also a liar, by saying I do not offer valid replies. I have pointed out that your invoking the legal aspect is a red herring.

      - No, it is not a red herring. Princeton is an institution of learning that influences society. The fact that they promote multiple illegal acts is unethical and a disgrace to the founders of that once venerable institution.

      >And atheism has nothing to do with it. You also know it perfectly well.

      - Actually, the serious state of mental and moral denial that you are in as an atheist is a confirmation of scripture:

      2 Corinthians 4.4:

      The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers....

      http://bible.cc/2_corinthians/4-4.htm



      Delete
    5. R:The Webster's definition of infanticide does not qualify the emotions or intention of the killer or the emotions and condition of the infant. Those are not even mentioned

      Yes, and the definition of a killer is a person that kills. That still makes it completely dishonest and a lie to call a soldier a killer.

      R:Singer advocates, "taking active steps to end the baby’s life" in certain cases, as referenced in the above article. That is illegal, no matter what kind of terminology you want to couch it in.

      Ehhh...Rick... Let me try it for the third time with capital letters as always:

      RED HERRING. THE LEGAL ASPECT IS IRRELEVENT TO THE MORAL ASPECT! EUTHANASIA BEING ILLEGAL DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT IMMORAL.

      R:Your denial of these two points seems to be so huge that there is nothing possible I could write to enlighten you.

      If you at least bothered to try to understand the points of your opponent, the discussion would be much easier.

      R:breaking the law or advocating the breaking of the law is definitely a moral and ethical issue.

      So.. Rick... Do you believe that anything that is legal is moral? Do you believe it was moral was the Jews in Nazi Germany were forced to wear a yellow star was moral just because it was the law? Again, the legal aspect is irrelevent to the discussion. The fact that euthanasia is illegal does not automatically mean it is immoral.

      R:No, it is not a red herring. Princeton is an institution of learning that influences society. The fact that they promote multiple illegal acts is unethical and a disgrace to the founders of that once venerable institution

      In the comment, where I accused you of being an idiot, I pointed out to you that the legal aspect is irrelevant to the discussion. The legal question is A RED HERRING.

      As for your accusation of Singer, I already pointed out that you have created a straw man and he does not promote infanticide or bestiality.

      Furthermore, a university is a place of learning, where freedom of speech is acknowledged. Even if you disagree with Singer, he has the right to present his case. Also, it is near the impossible to find two human beings that agree on everything, that includes the different professors at Princeton. An educated man does NOT rely on authority, he relies on reason. Argument stand on their own merit. Hence, your accusations of Princetone is even more ridiculous.

      R:Actually, the serious state of mental and moral denial that you are in as an atheist is a confirmation of scripture

      Hm... At first you try to show that my insults are part of the characteristics of an atheist and now you claim that I am in denial. Non-sequitor anyone?

      Finally, I wish you could point out what evidence you have presented that were not anecdotal or flawed that I have denied?

      Delete
    6. >Yes, and the definition of a killer is a person that kills. That still makes it completely dishonest and a lie to call a soldier a killer.

      - You are conflating word usage and word context.

      1. Firstly, I never used the specific word "killer" anywhere in this article. I quoted Singer's own words who is on record stating the following in full context as outlined:

      "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

      2. Secondly, killing as a soldier in a war is never considered illegal in society. It is considered immoral by some religious people, however, just war theory defends this act in a theistic framework.

      >THE LEGAL ASPECT IS IRRELEVENT TO THE MORAL ASPECT! EUTHANASIA BEING ILLEGAL DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MAKE IT IMMORAL.

      - It is different but not entirely irrelevant. If it was entirely irrelevant then no laws would be necessary in society. Do you know why laws are necessary, Anonymous? One reason is because people often have their own ideas about what is right and wrong and they threaten the lives of others.

      For example, the reason that Melissa Ohden offered that short little vide clip is to try and explain to people that infants have value and should not be left on hospital shelves to die.

      Unfortunately, however, there are people who have their own subjective ideas about what a "person" is that is contrary to the legal definition of a person and they believe that changing or breaking infanticide laws is preferable. Yes, legal questions are very much a part of ethics and morality.

      >So.. Rick... Do you believe that anything that is legal is moral?

      - No, but I do not believe that Princeton should promote that which is both illegal and completely opposed to the founding principles of the university, especially with regard to killing babies. I have outlined the faulty logic of Singer's ethical approach and I do not find his ideas to be morally or ethically acceptable.

      >As for your accusation of Singer, I already pointed out that you have created a straw man and he does not promote infanticide or bestiality.

      - Anonymous, you are in a state of complete and utter denial.

      An objective and accepted definition of infanticide has been quoted for you:

      infanticide - "1: the killing of an infant"

      Singer - "killing a newborn baby" is preferable morally in certain cases.

      Where in the objective definition of infanticide is there any qualification of motive or condition?

      You are conflating the issue based upon your own subjective motives. I'm being objective, you are being subjective and controlled by your feelings.

      >Finally, I wish you could point out what evidence you have presented that were not anecdotal or flawed that I have denied?

      - On the most basic possible level I've just outlined how you are attempting to conflate an objective dictionary definition so that it does not apply to Peter Singer. This is not 'anecdotal' it is the most basic of facts. Your continuous denial and pejorative comments only serve to underscore the darkness of your mind and condition.

      Delete
    7. R:You are conflating word usage and word context.

      No, I am not. It is dishonest to call a proponent of child euthanasia a proponent of infanticide. Full stop.

      R:Firstly, I never used the specific word "killer" anywhere in this article.

      I gave you an analogy with a soldier being called a killer, Rick. If you want to nitpick with definitions, then a soldier should be called a killer and a christian as a proponent of human sacrifices.

      R:Secondly, killing as a soldier in a war is never considered illegal in society. It is considered immoral by some religious people, however, just war theory defends this act in a theistic framework.

      Your words here are completely irrelevent. By dictionnary definition a killer is person who kills. It does not matter if the action is legal or not. It does not matter if the action is moral or not. By definition a soldier is a killer.

      R:It is different but not entirely irrelevant. If it was entirely irrelevant then no laws would be necessary in society.

      Rick... How many times will you force me to repeat myself? We are discussing the moral aspect of the question. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MORAL ASPECT AND THE LEGAL ASPECT? If you do, why do you keep mentioning that euthanasia is illegal in the US? What difference does it make if it is illegal or legal?

      R:I have outlined the faulty logic of Singer's ethical approach and I do not find his ideas to be morally or ethically acceptable.

      Great, you have completely grasped Singer s system of ethics just with his short FAQ and a couple of second-handed articles from his opponents. Yep, good job, Rick.

      R:An objective and accepted definition of infanticide has been quoted for you

      Yes and I gave you an example how a soldier could be called a killer by your dictionnary definition. You understand full well how dishonest that is. It does not matter if the killing is justified or not. According to the dictionnary definition, a killer is just person that kills. Hence, by definition a soldier is a killer and a christian is a proponent of human sacrifices since they worship the crucifiction of Jesus to atone for the sins of humanity. You know full well it would be a dishonest lie to call a soldier a killer, to call a christian a proponent of human sacrifices and to call a proponent of child euthanasia a proponent of infanticide.

      R:You are conflating the issue based upon your own subjective motives. I'm being objective, you are being subjective and controlled by your feelings.

      You are ignoring word usage and word context. The term infanticide is NOT used in child euthanasia. Child euthanasia is NOT associated in the majority of cases with infanticide in the mind of people. The same way most people will not imagine a soldier when the word "killer" is mentioned.

      If you feel justified calling Singer a proponent of infanticide, you sould not object being called a proponent of human sacrifices. By the dictionnary term, you are a proponent of human sacrifices.

      R:On the most basic possible level I've just outlined how you are attempting to conflate an objective dictionary definition so that it does not apply to Peter Singer.

      Ok, I will concede to you that point. Singer is a proponent of infanticide, a soldier is a killer, a surgeon is just a butcher and a christian is a proponent of human sacrifices.

      You must agree with all my definitions above to be consistent. It does not matter if other people are confused with these terms. After all, the dictionnary definition trumps human understanding 8)

      Delete
    8. >No, I am not. It is dishonest to call a proponent of child euthanasia a proponent of infanticide. Full stop.

      - As I've shown several times already, Singer has stated, "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." offering his rationale for infanticide.

      Perhaps "murder" would be more acceptable to you? When you consider the legal definition of murder, it applies to Singer's views:

      1. According to the legal definition of murder and homicide, a key question is whether or not a specific act of killing is legal.

      2. It is presently illegal in the US to either passively allow an infant to die or to actively take measures to kill a living infant.

      3. Now matter how you define it, Peter Singer is advocating either actively or passively taking the life of an infant.

      4. Therefore, according to the legal definition of murder and homicide, Peter Singer is advocating murder.

      The following is a legal definition of homicide and murder:

      "A person commits culpable homicide when that person causes the death of another human being:

      by means of an unlawful act;
      by criminal negligence;
      by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do anything that causes the death of that human being;

      if that human being is a child or sick person, by willfully frightening that human being."

      http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/canadian-legal-faqs/criminal-law/federal/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-euth.html

      Thanks for your dialogue. This will be a nice addition to the article.

      Delete
    9. R:As I've shown several times already, Singer has stated, "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living." offering his rationale for infanticide

      Nope, it is not a rationalization of infanticide. Just stating that one life is more important than another is NOT a reason to take away the other life.

      R:Perhaps "murder" would be more acceptable to you?

      No, it would not be acceptable to me. Again, you know full well that there is a huge difference between murder and euthanasia. You are deliberately trying to disinform your readers. That makes you a liar.

      Euthanasia is not murder, no one is thinking of euthanasia when you mention murder or infanticide. I guess I should be calling you a killer and a proponent of human sacrifices since you are so akin to dictionnary definitions. After all, you kill all those bacteria daily, not to mention the insects... Yep, you are a killer, Rick.

      R:Thanks for your dialogue. This will be a nice addition to the article

      You are welcome. Once again you have shown your total dishonesty and lack of morals

      Delete
    10. I'm sorry, I had given you the legal definition of murder in Canada and I would like to offer the legal definitions of murder in the US and Australia, Singer's home country, just to be clear.

      1. The following is a key aspect regarding the legal definition of murder in the US:

      "A person commits the crime of murder if with intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person or of another person, or under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another person."

      2. In Singer's home country Australia, his views and teachings also advocate murder, according to the legal definition of murder in Australia:

      "The basic principle of murder involves two overarching components: the act or omission causing death (actus reus), as well as intention and recklessness (mens rea)."

      The links for both sources are presently in the article.


      Delete
    11. >No, I am not. It is dishonest to call a proponent of child euthanasia a proponent of infanticide. Full stop.

      Well, it seems I've found a quote where Singer uses the specific word infanticide and why he would consider it ethically acceptable under certain conditions.

      Scott Klusendorf, Director of Bio-Ethics at Stand to Reason, describes Singer's arguments for infanticide as a "bold defense" of infanticide. Klusendorf quotes Practical Ethics (2d ed.) where Singer specifically uses the word infanticide and describes under what specific considerations he would consider it ethically viable: “We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.” (p.173) Singer describes how subjective happiness should be used as a basis for such decisions: “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed."

      http://www.equip.org/articles/peter-singers-bold-defense-of-infanticide/

      Summary: promoting "strict conditions on permissible infanticide" is promoting infanticide under strict conditions. Full stop.

      Are you ready to admit that you have been wrong, Anonyrus? Singer does promote infanticide according to his own words and definitions.

      Delete
    12. I have told you repeatedely, you have completely discredited yourself. Hence, I will not take any of your quotes at face value. Provide the full context of the original words from Singer.

      Furthermore, do provide an example where the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life.

      R:Summary: promoting "strict conditions on permissible infanticide" is promoting infanticide under strict conditions. Full stop

      That is called child euthanasia, Rick. You just claim he is favorable of infanticide, completely disregarding "strict conditions". Therefore, you are a liar, taking quotes out of context.

      Delete
    13. >you have completely discredited yourself.

      That's funny, you repeatedly call me a "liar" for labeling Singer as pro-infanticide and I am the one who is "discredited"? - not so. I believe your "system of morality" is a little skewed.

      >...I will not take any of your quotes at face value.

      Before calling people liars, the onus is on you to do some research and to know about a subject.

      The quote in question is easily searchable in Google Books. I've made a webclip of the quote in context. If you believe the webcip at the following link is a forgery, then go to the library and check out the book yourself. Then, and only then, would you have any justification of possibly calling me a liar or deceitful. As it stands, it is you who is in the wrong.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/8431593197/

      Delete
    14. Rick: I believe your "system of morality" is a little skewed.
      People in glass houses Rick.
      Given the moral atrocities to be found in the Bible, with your God commanding infanticide amongst other horrible acts, you're in no position to lecture others about morality.

      Delete
    15. Not only is Havok off topic, he has proven himself to be unwilling to carry on a civilized discourse.


      Beginning in December 2011, Havok became so frustrated with his lack of answers that all he could do was to post unsubstantiated slander against me. He is still unable to validate his slander with any comments made prior to December 7, 2011.



      With regard to the question of slander and Internet etiquette, most commenters seem to believe that ignoring a person who slanders is probably the best solution


      If any atheists would be willing to have a civilized debate without slander and name calling, that would be most welcome. The following article would be the appropriate location to begin such a thread:


      If God Exists, Then Objective Morality Exists

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/if-god-exists-then-objective-morality.html


      Delete
    16. R:That's funny, you repeatedly call me a "liar" for labeling Singer as pro-infanticide and I am the one who is "discredited"?

      You have dozen of other lies beside the one about Singer. Even if you are right about Singer, you are still a liar.

      Out of your latest one s, you claimed that the bullying of an infant was in keeping with Singer s morality. That is a blatant lie, since he is against needless suffering. And you are still a liar for claiming that all of Princeton shares the views of Singer.

      R:Before calling people liars, the onus is on you to do some research and to know about a subject.

      The quotes you used simply did not apply to your claims on Singer s stance. You are still a liar for claiming that those quotes DO show that Singer is a proponent of infanticide.

      Furthermore, even your most recent quote does not prove that Singer is pro-infanticide, since they do not show the exact conditions he suggests. He could have just be speaking about euthonasia. Only after reading the chapter "On taking a human life" from "Practical ethics" can I say that Singer does advocate infanticide though in extremely rare cases.

      Delete
    17. P.S. God knows how many flaws were pointed out to you in your article about morality. Several other non-theistic objective moral systems were presented to you, but you just decided to ignore them.

      Delete
    18. Funny Rick. Here you are, complaining that Singer's moral system endorses infanticide, and is therefore terrible and Singer a terrible person, all the while your own moral system does endorse infanticide among other evils.

      Are you complaining about Singer because his "strict conditions" aren't "God told him to"?

      Delete
    19. Anonymous,

      >You are still a liar for claiming that those quotes DO show that Singer is a proponent of infanticide.

      - First you called me a liar for claiming that Singer should be associated with the word infanticide. Now that I have offered his quotes embracing the word infanticide as "permissible", you claim that this does not make him a "proponent" of infanticide.

      Do you also consider the label "pro-abortion" to be a lie?

      Delete
    20. Rick, your reading disability is showing up again? Let me quote my previous post with capital letters at the important part as usual:

      "Furthermore, even your most recent quote does not prove that Singer is pro-infanticide, since they do not show the exact conditions he suggests. He could have just be speaking about euthonasia. Only after reading the chapter "On taking a human life" from "Practical ethics" CAN I SAY THAT SINGER DOES ADVOCATE INFANTICIDE though in extremely rare cases."

      Delete
    21. >Furthermore, even your most recent quote does not prove that Singer is pro-infanticide, since they do not show the exact conditions he suggests.

      - You are in a complete state of denial.

      Beginning January 24, you began calling me a liar because I claimed that Singer was promoting infanticide:

      "Liar, nowhere does Singer state that infanticide is ok. On the contrary, let me post a quote from his FAQ page again:

      "So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do."

      You dishonestly corrolate infanticide with euthanasia, which is not the same thing. The same way dishonest christian use abortion and murder as synonymes."

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/huge-public-response-for-waiter-who.html?showComment=1359029562126#c399057783537423757

      Anonymous, I have repeated over and again several times that I do not believe euthanasia and infanticide are synonyms. Singer could have chosen to use the word euthanasia if he wanted to. He is a professor at Princeton. Do you believe he is not aware of this choice?

      You seem to be missing Singer's logic. Singer chooses to emphasize his main point, that he does not consider infants to be persons under described conditions. If infants are always persons, it does not matter if he calls euthanasia, because then the killing would likely be unethical in his view anyway.

      However, since infants are not considered persons in these circumstances, it does not matter what Singer calls the killing in accordance with his understanding of ethics, because he sees the happiness of 'real' persons, such as the parents, as the 'greater good.' Thus, the killing is seen mainly as a moral benefit to others involved.

      Singer is very straightforward and claims that "infanticide" is OK and ethically "permissible" under some conditions. Those are his exact words.

      In calling me a liar by simply pointing this out reveals that you have some serious denial issues as well as moral ones.

      Delete
    22. This is getting tiresome, Rick. I already agreed with you that Singer does promote infanticide. What else do you need from me? Your reading disability is also an established fact, that is being proved again and again.

      And even if you prove that I was mistaken on single point of yours, you will still be a liar, since there are numerous other arguments and information you have misrepresented.

      R:Singer could have chosen to use the word euthanasia if he wanted to. He is a professor at Princeton. Do you believe he is not aware of this choice?

      Do you need me to repeat myself? The quote you provided did not give sufficient evidence that Singer promoted infanticide. You also have a history of quote minning like with Myers and his "nothing should be held sacred". In each quote of Singer you completely ignored the "specific conditions" that he was mentioning, which could have meant euthanasia and not infanticide.

      R:However, since infants are not considered persons in these circumstances, it does not matter what Singer calls the killing in accordance with his understanding of ethics, because he sees the happiness of 'real' persons, such as the parents, as the 'greater good.'

      1) Saying that a child is not a person yet does not automatically mean that it is ok to kill it.

      2) I and most people disagree with Singer that the killing of a disabled baby will help promote the "greater good" even of "real" people as Singer understand the term.

      3) Nowhere in the quotes you presented is shown what Singer understands as the "greater good".

      R:Singer is very straightforward and claims that "infanticide" is OK and ethically "permissible" under some conditions. Those are his exact words

      Yes and you never did show what those "permissable" conditions are. Again, it could just have been limited to euthanasia.

      Delete
    23. This is Rick: proving you "wrong" on one point means that he is completely justified in dismissing how wrong he is on other points, because you are now "slandering" him.

      Welcome to the club; it's Warden-think.

      Delete
    24. I know what Rick is trying to do, but I do not intend to let him get his way. He has not provided any quote whatsoever that showed how Singer does promote infanticide, hence I was justified in calling him a liar. I had to do my own research to learn what were Singer s stance on the subject.

      Delete
    25. It's OK. He's still a liar. Singer doesn't "promote" infanticide, any more than Warden "promotes" cannibalism of dead human corpses; he simply views it as differently valued than other things.

      Delete
    26. Anonymous,

      >I already agreed with you that Singer does promote infanticide.

      - What? Where is that link please.

      Anonymous, you have spent days calling me a liar because I made the claim that he does promote it as an ethically valid option. And as late as February 1 you claimed I need to "prove that Singer is pro-infanticide":

      "Furthermore, even your most recent quote does not prove that Singer is pro-infanticide, since they do not show the exact conditions he suggests."

      This was after I had offered definitions of infanticide and shown a webclip from Singer's book where he point-blank promotes ethically permissible infanticide. Yet, as late as January 31 you made the following claim:

      "You are still a liar for claiming that those quotes DO show that Singer is a proponent of infanticide."

      So, do show the link where where you specifically agreed with me "that Singer does promote infanticide."

      And, if you did make such a statement, why then have you continued to call me a liar for pointing out Singer's quotes reveal that he is in fact a proponent of infanticide?

      Also, if you are in fact admitting that you were wrong, wouldn't an apology be in order for your wrongful slander against me on this issue?

      Delete
    27. R:It's OK. He's still a liar. Singer doesn't "promote" infanticide, any more than Warden "promotes" cannibalism of dead human corpses; he simply views it as differently valued than other things.

      I know that he does not promote the way Rick suggest it. He does not encourage it, he just views it as an acceptable moral action. But for Rick it is too difficult to understand the difference anyway 8)

      R:What? Where is that link please.

      http://templestream.blogspot.ru/2013/01/peter-singers-infanticide-at-princeton.html?showComment=1359728135801

      R:Anonymous, you have spent days calling me a liar because I made the claim that he does promote it as an ethically valid option.

      Yes, you were and are still a liar. For the who-knows-which-time, it does not follow from your quotes that Singer promotes infanticide.

      R:This was after I had offered definitions of infanticide and shown a webclip from Singer's book where he point-blank promotes ethically permissible infanticide.

      Rick, you have a reading disability. I repeat myself: WITHOUT SHOWING WHAT PERMISSABLE CONDITIONS SINGER MEANS YOU CANNOT CLAIM HE PROMOTES INFANTICIDE

      R:And, if you did make such a statement, why then have you continued to call me a liar for pointing out Singer's quotes reveal that he is in fact a proponent of infanticide?

      Because it just does not follow from the quotes you offered.

      R:Also, if you are in fact admitting that you were wrong, wouldn't an apology be in order for your wrongful slander against me on this issue?

      No, it would not. Again, it does not follow from the quotes you offered that Singer views infanticide as a viable option. You never provided an explanation what Singer meant by "permissable conditions". I found out about his stance from Singer s book in the chapter about taking a human life, not from your quotes taking out of context.

      Delete
  2. Piece of writing writing is also a excitement, if you know afterward you can write
    otherwise it is complex to write.
    Here is my web blog - actuary

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your style is really unique in comparison to other folks I've read stuff from. Many thanks for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I will just book mark this page.
    Also visit my web blog ; online slots for money

    ReplyDelete
  4. Once again with the double-standard of morality from xians: Infanticide is only bad so long as "god" doesn't order it done. When it's god who orders it then it's perfectly moral.

    Hypocrites.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very good informatіon. Lucky me I reсently
    found your sіte by chance (stumbleupοn).
    I've saved as a favorite for later!

    Feel free to surf to my website vipshoppingalert.com

    ReplyDelete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!