Peter Singer: OK to kill disabled babies

In case you haven’t heard of this guy before, I’ll start by pointing out that he is an ethicist philosopher (seriously) at Princeton University.  Here are some snippets from the full article at Lifenews (read it all, it isn’t very long):

Singer came under international condemnation when he announced he favors killing disabled babies via infanticide. Though he was blasted from both sides of the political spectrum, the so-called ethicist still holds to the position.  . . . Singer said he would definitely kill a disabled newborn baby.

He indicated he would do so “if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.” Singer said he found it surprising that abortion advocates would disagree with his views.  “Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion,” Singer said. 

Meanwhile, he claimed he had one point of common beliefs with pro-life advocates.  “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 fetus and the newborn baby,” Singer explained. 

However, Singer’s view is that, instead of legal protection, both disabled babies and the unborn deserve death. As he wrote in Rethinking Life and Death, “Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”

The above is the faulty “personhood” argument used to justify abortion and, in Singer’s view, infanticide.  When influential leaders and politicians gets to decide which human beings are persons and which aren’t, watch your back. 

Still, I have to give him credit for taking the pro-choice position to its logical conclusion.  If partial birth abortion is acceptable, why not permit infanticide as along as the umbilical cord hasn’t been cut?  And what is the big deal about cutting the cord, anyway?  Babies are just as dependent 30 days later, or 40, or ???.

Despite the vehemence of some of his opponents, Professor Singer is regarded, in other circles, as an important and highly respected philosopher and bioethicist.  

His books are widely read, his articles frequently appear in anthologies, he is very much in demand throughout the world as a speaker, and has lectured at prestigious universities in different countries.

Oh, good.  So much for wisdom and discernment.

dr_nick.pngSinger’s comments and those of other culture-of-death leaders remind me of the advice Dr. Nick Riviera from The Simpsons gave when Homer was on life support: “Just to be on the safe side, we better pull the plug.”

In other news, Peter Singer announced plans to open a chain of day care centers and nursing homes.  No waiting lists!

6 thoughts on “Peter Singer: OK to kill disabled babies”

  1. Singers views on abortion are sick, so the baby doesnt look ‘perfect’, how vain has humanity become?! my sister is disabled and she gives so much more to this world than at least half of the able bodies beople i know, she is a happy bright beautiful young girl but has the severe disabilities, so my sister should have died at birth? How can people agree with killing an innocent unborn child because it ‘doesnt look right’ or ‘it doesnt fit in socially’ yet pheadophiles and rapists are kept alive with colour TV and regular meals because human rights say it is immoral to kill them. my sisters never done a thing wrong…yet we should have had her killed? I am sickened by the views of some people.


  2. i think these views are totally wrong and how any1 can think of something like this is beyond me. think of all the babies that have been misscarried, stillborn or died due to cotdeath, should they have been killed as well? as we are all the same, disabled people can have as good as a life as the rest of us and i think it is dispicable to think otherwise.


  3. Shameless plug for my anti-Singer blogging:

    Peter Singer basically thinks that intelligence is the best measure of value of life. Oddly enough, this places him at the top of the food chain.

    Ethics implies some moral standard. Mr. Singer operates only on intellectual standards, with no reference to morality or ethics. He is a biophilosopher at best – as he does not discuss or even deal with ethics.

    Are we surprised when pro-choice policies lead to young women who dump their babies in Dumpsters after a prom? Are we surprised when it leads to men who think they have the right to beat their pregnant girlfriends until they miscarry? Are we surprised when it leads to the conclusion that pregnant women have the right to do drugs without being thrown in jail, simply because they are pregnant? Sick.


  4. You fools, you foolish fools, yet another websites takes tiny snippets of Singer’s work to make him seem like a monster and more people read mere snippets and think they’re “morally correct” When these people really have no idea.


    1. Hi Alastair,

      If you are going to call names like that perhaps you could demonstrate where I have mischaracterized his views. If he doesn’t advocate the option to kill disabled babies then are you claiming that those quotes didn’t come from his book or that they were taken out of context? They seem rather specific to me.

      Again, the one thing I appreciate about Singer is that he is consistent (consistently evil, but consistent). Postmodern types have no foundation to criticize his views and neither do those who use the “personhood” argument (albeit with their own made up timeline) to rationalize abortion at earlier stages.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s