Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University has grown famous for his liberal views and leftist politics. In 2004, he was named the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. He was once voted one of Australia’s ten most influential public intellectuals. He serves on the Advisory Board of Incentives for Global Health, the NGO formed to develop the Health Impact Fund proposal.
And he believes humans having consensual sex with animals is fine and killing disabled babies is okay as well. You have to give Professor Singer credit for two things: At least he is honest with himself and consistent.
Unlike most pro-abortion people Singer recognizes that life begins at conception. In recognizing this, he concedes that killing at a non fully developed level, even if after birth, is all right. Singer was asked, “Would you kill a disabled baby?”, Singer responded, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.”
He goes on:
Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his murderous stance.
“Many people find this shocking,” continued Singer, “yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion.” Concluding his point, Singer said, “One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby.”
Singer’s position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was created in the image and likeness of God.
Asked about the choice between killing 10 cows or a human, Singer said he would kill the cows, but not because they were of less value, but because humans would mourn the death more. “I’ve written that it is much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future, and who plans for the future. Normal humans have such plans, but I don’t think cows do. And normal humans have family and friends who will grieve their death in ways more vivid and longer-lasting than the way cows may care about other cows. (Although a cow certainly misses her calf for a long time, if the calf is taken from her. That’s why there is a major ethical problem with dairy products.) If I really had to make such a decision, I’d kill the cows.”
Singer also sees nothing wrong with having sex with animals, as long as the animal is not forced into it. This gets into a number of issues, such as if the public accepts sex with animals, they will inevitably accept sex with children, right? As long as the kid does willingly participates, right? Here is a video with Singer discussing doggy style.
Finally, a truly bizarre story emerges from the UK. A money-saving plan to heat a swimming pool with energy from the cremation of dead bodies has been backed by a senior Government minister. How weird is that? Based on the comments below the article, the public thinks it’s a great idea.
One person comments:
As a local resident who will swim in the long awaited new pool when it opens, and the disposal of whose remains will one day contribute to its warming, I certainly have no objection to this proposal.
That my view accords with the majority here is borne out by the fact that, in letters to the local paper about this, those in favour outnumbered the nays by a factor of ten to one.
The happy coincidence that the leisure centre which is currently being refurbished is next door to the crematorium allows the introduction of this exellent idea.
The article states:
Redditch Borough Council will be the first authority in the country to use a crematorium to heat a swimming pool. Work has already begun on the project, which is expected to be completed this spring. Since the plans were approved in February last year, they have won an award from the Green Organisation.
Stay out of the deep end, you filthy animals.