Liberal World-view leads to a Corrupted Soul

by Shining One 23 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Shining One

  Princeton professor says killing
  disabled newborns is acceptable
  PRINCETON, N.J. (BP)--Princeton University's Peter Singer, widely known
  for his founding of the Great Ape Project to grant apes the same rights
  as humans, said Sept. 11 he would kill a disabled baby ?if that was in
  the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole.?
  (Well, who decides what the 'best interests' are?)
  ?Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman?s right to
  have an abortion,? Singer, a professor of bioethics, said in a question
  and answer article in The Independent, a British newspaper. ?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.?
  (There ya go, abortion rights backers. This is the final logical point that nails your position down, spoken by one of your own.)
  Singer?s position is the "logical extension of the culture of death,"
  LifeSiteNews.com, a pro-life news agency, asserted. He contends there is
  no inherent dignity in man and no sanctity of human life. Singer
  rejects the idea that man was created in the image and likeness of God, the
  site noted, and therefore believes man deserves no special treatment.
  (The cold logic of materialism/naturalism leads us to a corrupted view of life and death.)
  ?Once again Singer is making distinctions between human beings he would
  consider normal and those he would consider not normal, thus he is
  deciding who is a person and who is not,? Alex Schadenberg, executive
  director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews.com.
  ?Non-persons are allowed to be killed.?
  (As the judge in a case tried this spring said, "It is not relevant if the fetus feels pain in an abortion.)
  In the same article, Singer was asked a question about giving rights to
  animals that can?t understand those rights: ?Isn't it contradictory to
  ascribe human-based rights to animals? Surely it is absurd to apply a
  purely human concept to an animal who has no hope of ever understanding
  such a thing.? Singer said the idea of giving human-based rights to animals was not at
  all absurd.
  ?Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual
  disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can't
  understand the concept,? Singer said. ?It's the moral agents, the ones who are
  acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute
  rights do not need to understand these concepts.?
  (All of us understood nothing at until we were late in the toddler stage!)
  Another question dealt with what Singer would do if he were forced to
  decide between ?shooting 10 healthy cows and one healthy human.?
  ?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,? Singer said.
  ?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.?
  (I bet PETA was not happy with this statement!)
  When asked whether there are moral absolutes, Singer said there is only
  one.?The only moral absolute is that we should do what will have the best
  consequences for all those affected by our actions,? he said.
  (No moral absolutes leads to an acceptance of the murder of anyone that we deem, "disabled or not cost effective", AKA, Terry Schiavo. The judge in that case would not even go see her before he allowed her to be starved to death!)
  In a question and answer article for the St. Petersburg Times in
  Florida published Sept. 14, Singer again addressed the issue of euthanasia.
  ?You've written about Terri Schiavo,? reporter Susan Aschoff said. ?You
  say people have the right to end their lives or those of their loved
  ones. Where do you draw the line??
  ?You have to distinguish cases,? Singer said, ?where people are
  competent to make their own decisions and cases where human beings are not
  competent, and who should then make those decisions. If it's a newborn
  baby, it's really the parents.
  (If you can't afford them, just kill them. If you lived in China you could probably kill your female offspring because males are more desirable culturally!)
  ?When we talk about decisions that are made in utero, most people would
  agree that a pregnant woman who has a fetus with a severe abnormality
  ought to be able to terminate the pregnancy,? he added. ?Most people,
  including Catholic hospitals, don't say you have to do everything to keep
  a newborn infant alive.?
  (so, now Singer appeals to his general understanding of what 'Catholic hospitals' do or don't do? Why ask the Catholics, Peter? Why not the Islamic mullahs that teach people that their God will give them a place in heaven if they become homicide bombers?)
  R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern
  Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., has written commentaries
  on Singer?s radical views several times, including in 2005 when Mohler
  said the very fact that Singer and others seriously make such arguments
  about the value of human life indicates that the culture of death is
  growing in assertiveness. ?Once we accept any moral distinction between a human being and a human
  person, we embrace the logic of death and inch our way toward an
  inevitable embrace of murder. It doesn't get much scarier than this,? Mohler
  wrote.
  ( I guess all of us over 30 need to be concerned that someone might want to 'put us out of our misery' at some time in the future when we are not, 'cost effective'!)
  Rex
• 

  LittleToe

  And there I was thinking that you thought the world was depraved since Adam, anyhow. How does a "Liberal World-view" (sic) corrupt a soul further, in your theology?

  ( I guess all of us over 30 need to be concerned that someone might want to 'put us out of our misery' at some time in the future when we are not, 'cost effective'!)

  The chances are I might embrace the idea, especially if I'm in pain...

  ...ever see Logans Run?
• 

  Pistoff

  OH shi**ing one:
  
  Can you post YOUR views, or should we just assume that you have joined the Pro Life and Pro War, If the Bible tells Me So, God, guts and Guns lobby?
• 

  Pistoff

  Shining one:
  
  WHERE is your moral outrage over the killing of innocent people in Iraq? Isn't it true that you and your Bushie buddies view this as acceptable collateral damage? How is that any better than viewing termination of pregnancy?
  
  After all, the ones dying in Iraq are family members, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. They will be missed, lives are shattered, families are ruined.
  
  WHY no such handwringing over this?
• 

  FairMind

  Shining one, I for one accept the view that abortion is murder and that animals are not on the same level as humans.Being pro-life often means one is also pro-God since God is the source of life and holds life, especially human life as sacred.

  I am definitely not pro-was but I can understand that when war happens the innocent unfortunately die along with the military combatants.As far as Iraq goes, innocent civilians there are being killed by their own countrymen and in the name of Allah. As far as I'm concerned, those who believe if we leave them (Islamic) alone they?ll leave us alone are sadly mistaken.Have no doubt; the battle lines have been drawn
• 

  Forscher

  And people still insist on calling Hitler right-wing!
  
  Really, One cornerstone of Hitler's vision for humanity was the elimination of those born weak. Those born crippled and mentally retarded were killed by the Nazis in the interest of producing a strong master race. I guess the only difference between the opinions of Hitler and Singer on this issue is the race angle. Singer's contention that "there is no inherent dignity in man and no sanctity of human life" is the logical conclusion of evolutionary thinking since it sets Humans on the same level with all other animals. If anything, Singer is being a bit hypocritical since he wopuld deny newborns the same rights he is fighting so hard to extend to apes.
  
  The full extent of Singer's hypocrisy really comes out in his reasoning when it comes to rights for animals:

  In the same article, Singer was asked a question about giving rights to animals that cant understand those rights: ?Isn't it contradictory to ascribe human-based rights to animals? Surely it is absurd to apply a purely human concept to an animal who has no hope of ever understanding such a thing.? Singer said the idea of giving human-based rights to animals was not at all absurd. Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can't understand the concept,? Singer said. It's the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights do not need to understand these concepts.?

  
  Apparently the same higher stance doesn't apply when talking about disabled human infants.
  
  What really chilled me though was something attributed to a judge's ruling. "As the judge in a case tried this spring said, 'It is not relevant if the fetus feels pain in an abortion.'" Anti-death penalty folks , many of whom are staunch abortionists, hold that the pain involved in killing a person makes the death penalty cruel and unjustifiable. Yet a judge bought into the argument that a woman's right to an abortion is so sacrosanct as to overide such any considerations as the pain involved in chemically burning an unborn infant to death or dismembering them limb from limb? I sure hope that judge didn't write was attributed to him/her.
  
  I will agree that the liberal world view does lead to a corrupt soul.
  Forscher
• 

  Simon

  Anyone wanting to post right-wing drivel will be deleted.
• 

  Gill

  If we begin concentrating on the welfare of the people we can 'see' the rest will follow. But the problem is, we as a world don't. Start demanding that the US support the UN a little more rather than fight it and we may at least scratch the surface of helping humanity and 'feeding the soul.'
• 

  Simon

  If we begin concentrating on the welfare of the people we can 'see' the rest will follow. But the problem is, we as a world don't. Start demanding that the US support the UN a little more rather than fight it and we may at least scratch the surface of helping humanity and 'feeding the soul.'

  I agree.

  Unfortunately, America doesn't even care about half of it's own citizens - non Americans are even lower on the scale.

  World news isn't news unless an American life is affected or the price of oil goes up. 1,000 people can die but if they are black, asian, poor or "not here" it won't make the front page (unless absolutely nothing else is happening that day).
• 

  Athanasius

  What about left-wing drivel? Do the same rules apply?