Singer: Childbearing should not be an “absolute right”
by Kelli
[W]e need to consider whether we can talk about trying to reduce population growth and whether that’s compatible with the very reasonable concerns people have about women’s right to control their life decisions and their reproduction….
Turns out that the right to graze as many cows as you like on the common was not an absolute right…. Obviously this is what I think we ought to be saying even about how many children we have….
I hope we don’t get to a point where we do have to override it… but I don’t think we ought to shrink away from considering that as a possibility.
~ Princeton University bioethicist and infanticide proponent Peter Singer (pictured), speaking at last week’s Women Deliver conference, as quoted by IJReview.com, June 9
More at LifeNews.com.
[Photo via ibloga.blogspot.com.au]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
It has been noted before, but it bears repeating:
Any discussion by Peter Singer about overpopulation and limited rights to continue living must begin with the voluntary reduction of Peter Singer and his ilk.
I have never heard of population alarmist who volunteered to kill himself.
“…but I don’t think we ought to shrink away from considering that as a possibility.”
Pretty obvious he is proposing we consider forced sterilization or abortion if need be. And Ex-GOP, you wonder why people like Mary and I make Nazi comparisons?
Seriously Del I remember when poster xalasie posted that same thing. If youre THAT worried about pop control like this guy and Warren Buffett then why not kill yourself?? Oh you wouldnt dare. But of course I really dont want anyone to do that. Yet its okay that Buffett donated enough money to abort Chicago.
Why is it that these people who graduate from these high class colleges so dumb? They are book smart Im sure but they dont have common sense. Ive met a few doctors and nurses who are the same way. They can read from a book and understand yet ANY doctor or nurse should know that a pregnancy is a new growing human being. But many will still deny that. If a kid can understand then why cant a doctor?
Oops typo above post should say seem so dumb?
It’s not a matter of being stupid. The problem is that folks like Singer are elitists — They know that they are worthy to live and breed and consume, but the rest of us are beneath their dignity.
This same elitism fuels the intolerance of liberal hatred toward persons who disagree with them.
And this is why the population alarmists do not hear how they sound or take their own advice: They insist that the world has too many people who do not deserve to live…. the poor, the Africans, the South Americans. They do not fear a draconian world of forced sterilization and infanticide because such a world will not take anything away from themselves.
They are above the laws which they propose for others. (Yes, this is nothing new. This was the attitude of the Nazi Master Race policies.)
The obvious question at this point is what the hell was Princeton thinking when they hired this guy?
Del, you are right about the term “elitist”. The challenge historically for people who think like Singer has been how to enact such policies? Who decides who can have children and who cannot? Democracy has stood in their way. Elitists like Singer as well as Sanger and Malthus have opined that elitist people like themselves, not disabled people or human weeds, would make the decisions for a Utopian society.
They insist that the world has too many people who do not deserve to live…. the poor, the Africans, the South Americans.
As a member of three historically marginalized groups — women, persons with mental illness, and African Americans — people like Singer make me very nervous.
Singer is almost seventy. What if someone decides that people over 65 must go? Is he voluntarily going to go gently into that good night? I don’t think so. The sad thing is that he had family members that died in the Holocaust. You think he would know better.
Just enough of me, way too much of you.
It’s not really scary that he says these things. Free country..you can SAY what you want to…
The SCARY part is that there are other people who take this loon SERIOUSLY.
This is why the educated elitists need Darwin. Their social success is used to indicate (erroneously) that they are of a genetically superior class. With Darwin, they can claim that this is scientific. And they have something to do about it: positive eugenics – encouraging the correct people to reproduce – and negative eugenics – somehow getting the wrong people to reproduce.
Guess what color the wrong people are? Guess what socio-economic status the wrong people come from?
This is all well-documented across history. In my opinion, from my reading, the perception of the us-vs.them-as-social-burden begins its direct historical lines with the beginning of the “Poor Laws” in England, in the 1300s. These laws dictated how the society – govt plus local religious institutions – would address the poor, vagrants, needy children, and any others who were dependent on welfare / charity.
Darwin gave the argument that these people can be scientifically defined as “inferior.”
In 1940, Frederick Osborn wrote a book on the topic, “Preface to Eugenics.” He and others were bringing these established ideas into the modern day of epidemiology, genetics, and medicine.
You can go read that book if you want. Find it in a library or order it from somewhere.
Hilter took these ideas directly from the United States eugenics movement as support for his anti-semitism: building political power by building a false enemy supposedly based on science.
After Hitler, it became unpopular to be a eugenicist. Yet, eugenics hung around in high school and college textbooks for a while
http://www.textbookhistory.com/eugenics-in-20th-century-biology-textbooks/
Osborn put out a second edition in 1951, after Hitler. So, this idea really had some staying power, even after Hitler.
This elitism was the support for the involuntary sterilization programs forced on low-SES people, including guess-what-color, and broadly in Native American societies/nations served by Indian Health Service. Those trends largely waned out over time, and mostly ended in the 1970s.
By then, we had abortion, and a big movement to get publically funded birth control everywhere, and drives to get publically funded abortion.
Singer illustrates that the elitists are concerned with things at the societal level, but have moved from coercion ideas to convincing individuals it is a matter of individual “rights” and choice. The advocates and promoters all along – Sanger, Rockefeller, Gates, etc. have always been interested in preserving the status quo of the elites and figuring out how to keep those darkies from Asian and Africa from ruining what “we” have.
This is why Bill Gates is in Africa. This is why M. Sanger was in Japan in 1921.
This history is very thick. They use rhetoric that is currently palatable to justify the same old elitist attitude about killing off the undesirables.
You hit the nail on the head, Last Democrat.
Sadly, most black “leaders” (and I use the term loosely) support Planned Parenthood.
Well put last Dem.
Yesterday, while I was at work, my cousin stole my
iphone and tested to see if it can survive a 40 foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation. My iPad is now destroyed and she has 83 views.
I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!
Visit my homepage Prolexin
Great post, LastDem.
Prolexin, maybe Singer will see if he can survive a 40 foot drop. He’d be a guaranteed youtube sensation if he tripled the height!
Population control? Let it begin with him!
Its not my first time to pay a visit this web page, i am visiting this site dailly and obtain nice facts from here every day.
my blog garcinia cambogia weight loss reviews