Archive for the Peter Singer Category

Noam Chomsky “values are not absolute” debating Abortion

Posted in Noam Chomsky, Peter Singer with tags , , , on March 10, 2014 by saynsumthn

These clips are taken from the 2006 Tony Kaye documentary “Lake of Fire” that graphically depicts the contemporary abortion debate in the United States.

Noam Chomsky is professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and is one of the fathers of modern linguistics. Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, an anarchist, and libertarian socialist.

Chomsky says, “The values that we hold are not absolute, they are always contingent…so choice is legitimate preserving life is legitimate and sometimes they run into conflict.”

NoamChomsky2011-250px-240x199

The Blaze described Noam Chomsky this way, “Noam Chomsky has distinguished himself as one of the American left’s most prominent “philosophers” and “cognitive scientists.” The MIT professor is known for filtering his knowledge and opinions into countless books, media interviews and the like. Considering his past far-left commentary, it’s no wonder that he has become a darling of the Occupy Wall Street movement. And over the past month, the prominent academic has been fast at work helping to advance the Occupy agenda.”

here is a fuller version of that vid including pro-abortion professor Peter Singer:

The tolerance of Christians and Conservatives for haters like Peter Singer and Ayn Rand

Posted in Abortion, Ayn Rand, Conservative, Peter Singer with tags , , , , , , , , , , on June 22, 2011 by saynsumthn

Below is a great piece and worth reading: Come on people WAKE UP !

The Dangerous Mind of Peter Singer
Jun 22, 2011 / H/T First Things Written By Joe Carter

Bespectacled, balding, and thin, the Australian scholar Peter Singer has the looks of a stereotypical college professor. You would never be able to tell simply by his unassuming persona that his mind holds some of the most controversial ideas in American academia.

Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).

If he were a high school teacher, one might expect his views would raise parental concerns about his fitness to instruct on matters ethical. But Singer is a college professor, and so must wait the three months between high school graduation and college to begin proffering his worldview to students beginning to form theirs.

Academic ivory towers are increasingly tolerant of psychopathy masquerading as philosophy, which accounts for the Australian philosopher’s appointments at elite universities on three continents. He currently is the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University’s Center for Human Values.

Despite the fact that Singer champions an incoherent and inconsistent philosophy—he’s the Ivy League equivalent of Ayn Rand—he’s been eerily influential. He has served as editor for prestigious philosophy journals, appeared on numerous television programs, and even penned the entry on ethics for Encyclopedia Britannica. The New England Journal of Medicine said he has had “more success in effecting changes in acceptable behavior than any philosopher since Bertrand Russell,” and The New Yorker called him the most influential philosopher alive. His most dubious distinction, though, may be his inspiration of animal rights activist Ingrid Newkirk to start People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). (The next time you see a celebrity posing nude to raise awareness about the dignity of chinchillas, you’ll know who to blame.)

Perhaps this unwarranted notoriety is why so many otherwise serious people—including far too many Christians—feel that Singer must be treated as a formidable thinker. The University of Oxford even held a conference last month called “Christian Ethics Engages Peter Singer.” Had the conference title ended with “In a Bout of Zulu Stick Fighting” it might have worth attending. Instead, it offered the usual tropes of academic politics—engaging in conversation “at once charitable and candid with other traditions of religious and philosophical thought.”

The Guardian reports that the dialogue “was striking for its agreements, particularly the common cause that can be made between Christians and utilitarians when tackling global poverty, animal exploitation and climate change.”

However, it was on the last issue that the conference demonstrated real philosophical interest too. Singer admitted that his brand of utilitarianism – preference utilitarianism – struggles to get to grips with the vastness of the problem of climate change. Further, there is an element that comes naturally to Christian ethics that his ethics might need in order to do so. It has to do with whether there are moral imperatives that can be held as objectively true.

Climate change is a challenge to utilitarianism on at least two accounts. First, the problem of reducing the carbon output of humanity is tied to the problem of rising human populations. The more people there are, the greater becomes the difficulty of tackling climate change. This fact sits uneasily for a preference utilitarian, who would be inclined to argue that the existence of more and more sentient beings enjoying their lives – realising their preferences – is a good thing. As Singer puts it in the new edition of his book, Practical Ethics: “I have found myself unable to maintain with any confidence that the position I took in the previous edition – based solely on preference utilitarianism – offers a satisfactory answer to these quandaries.”

One of the most “charitable and candid” things that can be said about Singer is that he may not truly believe some of his arguments’ conclusions. His decision to scrap his entire philosophical stance because it interferes with his views on climate change is just, one supposes, “Singer being Singer.” Tossing out a controversial premise but refusing to follow it to the rational conclusion is his modus operandi. It’s as if he enjoys the gasps of horror heard while he gives a sly wink that signals even he is not outlandish enough to believe such nonsense. For example, Singer has claimed that “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” He later adds that this doesn’t mean that it’s all right to kill such a child. Killing a child, in his view, is only wrong inasmuch as it offends and hinders the wishes of its parents.

He also advocates euthanizing victims of dementia, since their care requires resources better used for more worthy purposes—perhaps honoraria for speakers at a conference on euthanasia. But when Singer’s own mother was stricken with Alzheimer’s, he claimed her situation was “different”: “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult.”

What makes Singer not just controversial, but dangerous, is that he is allowed to clear a path for those who will not be so squeamish about following his arguments to their logical conclusions. Singer may now, at the mature age of 65, finally be adopting a view of morality that most of us learned in kindergarten. But other preference utilitarians may not be so flexible—or as hesitant to act on their beliefs. By treating Singer’s irrational, immoral, and psychopathic views as if they were positions held by reasonable people, we are helping to normalize anti-rational ethics.

A couple of weeks ago I argued that those who make excuses for Ayn Rand are creating a climate in which gullible people who don’t know better may fall under her spell. “Are we willing to be held responsible,” I asked, “for pushing them to adopt an anti-Christian worldview?”

Some of the same people who nodded in agreement at that sentiment will now sputter that Singer must be held to a different standard. But why is that the case? It can’t be because his philosophical views are worth taking seriously—even Singer seems to recognize that his premises often lead to untenable conclusions. Why then do his academic peers treat him as an intellectual and philosophical equal?

In the past, some people thought he was a person whose ideas needed to be challenged (for example, Fr. Neuhaus debated Singer in 2002). However, it has long since become evident that Singer is neither intellectually honest (see the post below by Princeton professor Robert P. George) nor worthy of engaging. I suspect that many Christians who still consider him to be a thinker rather than an entertainer do so simply out of fear of being unpopular.

Too many Christians in academia are worried that if they dismiss Singer as unworthy of serious consideration, they’ll find themselves on the margins of academic life. While they safely ignore the cranks on the fringe—racial supremacists, anti-Semites, Objectivists—they feel compelled to respect a man who holds views that, if realized, would make Saddam Hussein look benign. Would his peers treat him so if he held tenure at Podunk State rather than the alma mater of James Madison, John Rawls, and Brooke Shields?

While it is necessary to consider and debate unpopular views, there should be a minimum standard for ethical discourse whether on the elementary playground or in the lecture halls of Princeton. There are certain moral issues that are all but universally recognized as self-evidently wrong by those in possession of rational faculties. Rape is wrong, torturing babies for fun is objectively morally bad, and the Holocaust was not just a violation of utilitarian ethic, but an event of grave moral evil. If someone cannot meet this basic requirement, they can safely be ignored, regardless of where they received a paycheck.

For far too many years, Singer’s ill-conceived sophistry has been considered and debated by some of our country’s best minds. It’s time to end such silliness. Let’s assign a sophomore philosophy student to rebut his arguments and the rest of academia can move on to squashing the bad ideas being championed by morally and intellectually serious people.

Joe Carter is Web Editor of FIRST THINGS and the co-author of How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History’s Greatest Communicator. His previous articles for “On the Square” can be found here.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

That was a Great Piece and I thank Joe Carter for exposing the Christian/ Conservative hypocrisy on tolerating haters like Peter Singer and Ayn Rand

Just listen to Peter Singer bash Christianity and push abortion, euthanasia, and animal rights the read how Ayn Rand pushed the same and attacked Christianity as well:

I wrote this piece recently exposing how Conservatives support the pro-abortion/ Christian hating Ayn Rand:

“Conservatives” promote Atlas Shrugged while ignoring author Ayn Rand’s pro-abortion and anti-religious views

Fifty-four years after it was published, with sales of the book at 6.5 million copies and counting, Ayn Rand’s 1,000-page magnum opus “Atlas Shrugged” is finally coming to the screen. The $10 million production, part one of a projected trilogy, featuring a no-name cast (Taylor Schilling? Grant Bowler?) and financed entirely by John Aglialoro, a Philadelphia businessman.

“Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” the film adaptation of Ayn Rand’s prescient, unabashedly pro-free market capitalism novel, hits theaters April 15. Its timing could not be better.
The Daily Caller writes, Not only is the film a winner for holding firm to Randian philosophy, it also brazenly and refreshingly brings a political perspective that is almost universally absent from the big screen; so much so in fact it could become a cult classic, especially among Tea Partiers and their admirers, not to mention hordes of libertarians.

But, what is missing from most reviews is an in-depth look at the pro-abortion and hateful anti-religious philosophies of Atlas Shrugged’s author, Ayn Rand.

The National Review reports that , Conservatives with ties to the tea party are hoping a new movie version of a 1957 novel will help fuel their 21st century political movement.

And the Conservative watchdog group, the Heritage Foundation, promoted heavily by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, as scheduled a special screening of the film. Even FreedomWorks, the Washington-based tea party organization headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, has undertaken a massive campaign to push the movie into as many theaters as possible. So far, they’ve lined up 63 for opening day in major cities nationwide; FreedomWorks hopes to push that number to 300.

Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher,playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, Rand immigrated to the United States in 1926. She worked as a screenwriter in Hollywood and had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. She first achieved fame in 1943 with her novel The Fountainhead, which in 1957 was followed by her best-known work, the philosophical novel Atlas Shrugged.

Rand’s political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by a constitutionally limited government.She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism…but as much as some “Conservatives” praise her views, Rand was an atheist opposed to faith as opposite of “reason” and profoundly pro-abortion under the idea of personal rights, for women while denying even that the fetus exists or is alive, something which has proved to be scientifically false. Ayn Rand died on March 6, 1982, of heart failure.

An Embryo is not alive.” – Ayn Rand

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).”
“Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?”

(SOURCE: “Of Living Death,” The Voice of Reason, Ayn Rand pp. 58–59)

“Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life.” A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . . Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”

(SOURCE: “A Last Survey,” The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3)

“I cannot quite imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life.

“By what right does anyone claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and to dictate their personal choices?”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, Ayn Rand, June 1981, 3.)

“A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.”

(SOURCE: “The Age of Mediocrity,” The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 2.)

Ayn Rand on Religion:

Ayn Rand, “It has to be either reason or faith , I am against God for the reasons that I don’t want to destroy reason. I am against those that conceived that idea.” Watch interviews below:

Here Glenn Beck praises Ayn Rand – WHY ???

Rand’s Morality is not based on FAITH- but on her MIND and REASON alone, “his highest moral purpose is the achievement of his own actions…”
Here she speaks to Mile Wallace about her Book which attacks basic RELIGIOUS morality : Atlas Shrugged ! ” I Say that man is entitled to his own happiness…nor should he sacrifice himself for the happiness of others.”

the question remains, will “Conservatives” cover-up this outrageous side of Rand in their effort to “save Capitalism” or will they expose it? To be determined……

“Conservatives” promote Atlas Shrugged while ignoring author Ayn Rand’s pro-abortion and anti-religious views

Rep. Trent Franks on Planned Parenthood calls Kathleen Sebelius an “Abortion apologist”

Posted in Abortion, Defund Planned Parenthood, Financial mismanagement, Kathleen Sebelius, Medicaid Billing Practices, Obama, Peter Singer with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 20, 2010 by saynsumthn

Learn the RACIST and EUGENIC history of Planned Parenthood in this powerful documentary: Maafa21

FOR MORE READ: IRS investigates Planned Parenthood clinic stripped of national affiliation

Overpopulation and Darwinian eugenics motivated Discovery gunman who called human babies “Parasites”

Posted in Darwin, Environment, Eugenics, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Margaret Sanger, Peter Singer, Planned Parenthood, Sterilization, terrorism with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 2, 2010 by saynsumthn

Discovery Channel hostage crisis ends with gunman’s death
September 2, 2010

James J. Lee, who was protesting what he said was the network’s promotion of overpopulation, was fatally shot by police after taking three people captive at the company headquarters in Maryland.

Silver Spring, Md.: Police shot and killed a gunman after he took three people hostage Wednesday afternoon at the Discovery Channel’s headquarters here, officials said.

A law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing said authorities had identified James J. Lee as the likely suspect.

Lee, 43, who was upset with the channel over its programming, entered the building about 1 p.m., wielding a gun and wearing “explosive devices,” and took a security guard and two other employees hostage, police said. The rest of the company’s nearly 1,900 employees were evacuated from the building.

After several hours of telephone negotiations, Lee pulled out his gun and pointed it at one of the hostages, police said. Tactical officers then took aim at Lee, killing him. It was unclear whether Lee had been able to fire his gun, but all three hostages were able to escape safely, according to officials.

“I know that he had some history with folks at Discovery Channel,” Montgomery County Police Chief J. Thomas Manger said at a news conference after the shooting.

According to electronic court records, Lee was charged with disorderly conduct in 2008 and served 46 days in jail for a protest he staged in front of the channel’s headquarters. He said he was protesting that Discovery’s programming had little to do with saving the planet.

“He didn’t think we were environmentally sound,” said David Leavy, a spokesman for Discovery Communications, adding, “there had not been any communication from him in the last couple of years.”

A lengthy posting that could be seen Wednesday on a website registered to Lee expressed anger against the Discovery Channel and said it promoted overpopulation, according to a report from the Associated Press.

He said the network and its affiliates should stop “encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants.” Instead, he said, it should air “programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility.”

“NO MORE BABIES! Population growth is a real crisis,” he wrote.

“I want Discovery Communications to broadcast on their channels to the world their new program lineup and I want proof they are doing so,” he wrote. “I want the new shows started by asking the public for inventive solution ideas to save the planet and the remaining wildlife on it.”

Discovery Health and TLC, both owned by Discovery Communications, spearheaded America’s fascination with prodigious families.

TLC is perhaps the most recognizable in the large-family genre of reality television with its one-time flagship series “Jon & Kate Plus 8,” which at its peak garnered 10 million viewers. Its spin-off, “Kate Plus 8,” premiered with 3.4 million viewers in June.

TLC’s other bountiful brood includes The Duggar family in “19 Kids and Counting.” The network has also aired “Table for 12,” and “Kids by the Dozen,” which featured a number of families with 13 to 16 children each.

Lee posted a manifesto at savetheplanetprotest.com, but his re-purposing of the web page he’d owned since 2008 was only the latest step in Lee’s on-and offline crusade to draw attention to his cause and gain notice from the Discovery Channel. Posts with his email address and name can be found online dating back to 2006.

Lee’s original website was worldguardianvoices.com. An archived version of the page shows he was in San Diego in early December, 2006. Using the contact email “misterfifteen@hotmail.com,” Lee posted a notice dated December 11 that year stating he would be “meeting at Border’s Bookstore Downtown San Diego Gaslamp area” with “prospective people who want to do something.” He described “World Guardian Voices” as “a movement designed to educate the masses on the impending cultural collapse from overpopulation, global warming, animal extinction, pollution, and exploitation.” As with his manifesto discovered today, Lee made it clear in 2006 that his efforts were inspired by the works of Daniel Quinn, an author popular among environmentalists and anarchists. There was no mention of Discovery or any of its historically affiliated networks on Lee’s old site. Lee made no mention of the science-themed cable network 11 days later, when he made a pair of mysterious posts in a group forum on Myspace.com. Lee wrote:

I believe that it is totally possible to save the world. Not because I am a delusional maniac high on something, but because I had a practical idea on how to do it. A vision you might say, a solid idea that was very possible. The idea is not so unusual that it could not fail. I believe that there is a possibility that it could fail, like anything else.

BUT, I believe it so strongly in this idea that I am willing to put all my retirement money on it and risk ending up living on the streets like a hobo begging for handouts.

I can’t tell anyone all the specifics about my idea, because we are in competition with other environmental groups that mean well, but serve the needs of the River. If I tell you exactly what it is, the idea could be lost forever and I’ll just go off into retirement while I watch the world consume itself, so don’t ask me to be too specific about my idea.

Lee later wrote what appears to have been a response to a question since deleted from the thread. His second post was guarded, ending with, “If the idea matures to a successful execution I will call you and tell you the complete idea, because at that point you will need to know. At that point you can refuse. You can refuse at any point and quit at any time. You are under no obligation to continue even once you have started. It will roll on it’s own after that.” He then added his his “misterfifteen” hotmail address.

His Manifesto is loaded with demands to the Discovery Channel, it is Lee writes:
The Discovery Channel MUST broadcast to the world their commitment to save the planet and to do the following IMMEDIATELY:
1. The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs at prime time slots based on Daniel Quinn’s
“My Ishmael” pages 207-212 where solutions to save the planet would be done in the same way as the Industrial Revolution was done,
by people building on each other’s inventive ideas. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy
human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution.
A game show format contest would be in order.
Perhaps also forums of leading scientists who understand and agree with the Malthus-Darwin science and the problem of human
overpopulation.
Do both. Do all until something WORKS and the natural world starts improving and human civilization building STOPS
and is reversed! MAKE IT INTERESTING SO PEOPLE WATCH AND APPLY SOLUTIONS!!!!

2. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed. All former pro-birth programs must now push in the direction of stopping human birth, not encouraging it.

7. Develop shows that mention the Malthusian sciences about how food production leads to the overpopulation of the Human race. Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!

8. Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You’re the media, you can reach enough people. It’s you resposibility because you reach so many minds!

0. Stop all shows glorifying human birthing on all your channels and on TLC. ..

For every human born, ACRES of wildlife forests must be turned into farmland in order to feed that new addition over the course of 60 to 100 YEARS of that new human’s lifespan! THIS IS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE FOREST CREATURES!!!! All human procreation and farming must cease! It is the responsiblity of everyone to preserve the planet they live on by not breeding any more children who will continue their filthy practices.

Children represent FUTURE catastrophic pollution whereas their parents are current pollution. NO MORE BABIES!

Population growth is a real crisis. Even one child born in the US will use 30 to a thousand times more resources than a Third World child. It’s like a couple are having 30 babies even though it’s just one! If the US goes in this direction maybe other countries will too.

The humans? The planet does not need humans.


Now where have we heard that before???? Babies as Parasites??? No more humans – how about the abortion/population control crowd, starting with Darwin and moving to Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, Paul Ehrlich, John Holdren, and Peter Singer to name just a few.

For some interesting history about Darwin, Eugenics and how that mentality is being used for population control today- watch Maafa21 (clip below)

Darwin:

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant Euthanasia ? Just kill them humanely

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant …, posted with vodpod

In the 1970s, author of the Bible on population control the Population Bomb” and known as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. 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.

In a blog post for the New York Times entitled “Should this be the last generation?” Singer discusses South African philosopher David Benatar who said we should have humans sterilized . Singer calls Benator the “author of a fine book with an arresting title: ‘Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.’”

“To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her,” explains Singer.

EUGENICS IN THE USA?

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

In this Clip from the TV program 21st Century (Walter Cronkite) Harrison Brown, who raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense” . Interestingly enough, Harrison Brown and James Bonner co-wrote a book together in 1957 titled, The Next Hundred Years.

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

Here are some of the “ideas” John Holdren published in his book Ecoscience:

Where do people like Lee get their “Humans as Parasites” ideas???? Perhaps it is from Planned Parenthood’s founder- Margaret Sanger:

Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member in good standing with the racist American Eugenics Society. Sanger had boards members who were known for their racist writing and Sanger published many of those in her publications. Sanger called for parents to have a QUOTE: LICENSE TO BREED controlled by people who believed in her eugenic philosophy. She wanted all would be parents to go before her eugenic boards to request a “PERMIT TO BREED“. So much for Choice , huh?

Sanger also called for those who were poor and what she considered to be “morons and immoral‘ , to be shipped to colonies where they would live in “Farms and Open Spaces” dedicated to brainwashing these so-called “inferior types” into having what Sanger called, “Better moral conduct”.

I consider that the world and almost our civilization for the next twenty-five years, is going to depend upon a simple, cheap, safe contraceptive to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles, and among the most ignorant people. Even this will not be sufficient, because I believe that now, immediately, there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die out were the government not feeding them.
Planned Parenthood Founder, Margaret Sanger, 1950

Maybe from videos like this on YouTube:

University of Texas Biologist Eric Pianka -Population Control: Professor “HIV would be too slow!”

Alex Jones Eugenics Report: Genetically Altered Air, Water and Food Supply

Posted in Alex Jones, Eugenics, Food Safety, Genetically Modified Food, Mercury, New World Order, Peter Singer, Population Control, Rockefeller with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 1, 2010 by saynsumthn



Doomsday Seed Vault in Svalbard Norway

“The Svalbard Global Seed Vault, or the Doomsday Vault as the media have nicknamed it, was officially opened on February 26, 2008, to serve as the ultimate safety net for one of the world’s most important natural resources. The world’s seed collections are vulnerable to a wide range of threats – civil strife, war, natural catastrophes, and, more routinely but no less damagingly, poor management, lack of adequate funding, and equipment failures.“ Global Crop Diversity Trust

This ‘Doomsday Vault’ is part of an effort to protect the planet’s diminishing biodiversity.

The facility was dug deep into the frozen rock of an Arctic mountain on Spitsbergen, one of 3 Arpichelago Islands in Norway. Any seeds stored here will be secure for centuries, or longer.

As well as protecting against the loss of multicultural diversity, the vault is going to provide the salvation for restarting agricultural production at the regional or global level in the wake of a natural or man-made disaster.

Contingencies for climate change have been worked into the plan. Even in the worst-case scenarios of global warming, the vault rooms will remain naturally frozen for up to 200 years.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

“How The Earth Changed History” premieres Sunda…, posted with vodpod


Africans suspicious of Bill Gates investment

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invests in Monsanto
Thursday, August 26, 2010

Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010. This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000.

“The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering, in the press release. “First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.”

Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet. Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement.”

News of the Foundation’s recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, “We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto.” Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, “The Foundation’s ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa.”

Rest of Story Here

For a good look at Eugenics watch this film – Maafa21

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant Euthanasia ? Just kill them humanely

Posted in Death Panels, Eugenics, Harrison Brown, Holdren, Infanticide, Peter Singer with tags , , , on August 16, 2010 by saynsumthn

Taking Life: Humans
BY: Peter Singer
Excerpted from Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217

I do not deny that if one accepts abortion on the grounds provided in Chapter 6, the case for killing other human beings, in certain circumstances, is strong. As I shall try to show in this chapter, however, this is not something to be regarded with horror, and the use of the Nazi analogy is utterly misleading. On the contrary, once we abandon those doctrines about the sanctity of human life that – as we saw in Chapter 4 – collapse as soon as they are questioned, it is the refusal to accept killing that, in some cases, is horrific.
‘Euthanasia’ means, according to the dictionary, ‘a gentle and easy death’, but it is now used to refer to the killing of those who are incurably ill and in great pain or distress, for the sake of those killed, and in order to spare them further suffering or distress. This is the main topic of this chapter. I shall also consider, however, some cases in which, though killing is not contrary to the wishes of the human who is killed, it is also not carried out specifically for the sake of that being. As we shall see, some cases involving newborn infants fall into this category. Such cases may not be ‘euthanasia’ within the strict meaning of the term, but they can usefully be included within the same general discussion, as long as we are clear about the relevant differences.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Eugenics Professor Peter Singer : Allow Infant …, posted with vodpod

In the 1970s, as the leading theoretician of animal rights, Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Philosophy coined the term “speciesism” for anyone so narrow-minded as to, “allow the interest of his species to override the greater interest of members of other species“. Singer holds that the right to physical integrity is grounded in a being’s ability to suffer, and the right to life is grounded in the ability to plan and anticipate one’s future. Since the unborn, infants, and severely disabled people lack the ability to plan and anticipate their future, he states that abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia can be justified in certain special circumstances, for instance in the case of severely disabled infants whose life would cause suffering both to themselves and to their parents.

In a question posed to Singer, it was asked:
If you had to save either a human being or a mouse from a fire, with no time to save them both, wouldn’t you save the human being?”

Singer’s answer, ” Yes, in almost all cases I would save the human being. But not because the human being is human, that is, a member of the species Homo sapiens. Species membership alone isn’t morally significant, but equal consideration for similar interests allows different consideration for different interests. The qualities that are ethically significant are, firstly, a capacity to experience something — that is, a capacity to feel pain, or to have any kind of feelings. That’s really basic, and it’s something that a mouse shares with us. But when it comes to a question of taking life, or allowing life to end, it matters whether a being is the kind of being who can see that he or she actually has a life — that is, can see that he or she is the same being who exists now, who existed in the past, and who will exist in the future. Such a being has more to lose than a being incapable of understand this. Any normal human being past infancy will have such a sense of existing over time. I’m not sure that mice do, and if they do, their time frame is probably much more limited. So normally, the death of a human being is a greater loss to the human than the death of a mouse is to the mouse – for the human, it cuts off plans for the distant future, for example, but not in the case of the mouse. And we can add to that the greater extent of grief and distress that, in most cases, the family of the human being will experience, as compared with the family of the mouse (although we should not forget that animals, especially mammals and birds, can have close ties to their offspring and mates). That’s why, in general, it would be right to save the human, and not the mouse, from the burning building, if one could not save both. But this depends on the qualities and characteristics that the human being has. If, for example, the human being had suffered brain damage so severe as to be in an irreversible state of unconsciousness, then it might not be better to save the human

Singer states here that, ” The difference between killing disabled and normal infants lies not in any supposed right to life that the latter has and the former lacks, but in other considerations about killing. Most obviously there is the difference that often exists in the attitudes of the parents. The birth of a child is usually a happy event for the parents. They have, nowadays, often planned for the child. The mother has carried it for nine months. From birth, a natural affection begins to bind the parents to it. So one important reason why it is normally a terrible thing to kill an infant is the effect the killing will have on its parents.

It is different when the infant is born with a serious disability. Birth abnormalities vary, of course. Some are trivial and have little effect on the child or its parents; but others turn the normally joyful event of birth into a threat to the happiness of the parents, and any other children they may have.

Parents may, with good reason, regret that a disabled child was ever born. In that event the effect that the death of the child will have on its parents can be a reason for, rather than against killing it.

When asked the question: Would you kill a disabled baby?

Singer Replied, “Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion. 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.

EUGENICS IN THE USA?

In the 1970’s President Obama’s Science Czar, Paul Holdren, published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Holdren stated officially that one of his mentors was a Professor he had by the name of Paul Harrison.

Paul Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar praised his mentor, Harrison Brown, who wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published in a book entitled, No Growth Society,

Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue?” He stated clearly that in the 1970’s the US had already exceeded its “optimum population size of 210 million” (pg. 41) and concluded that , ” it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative…“

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

With Professors like Singer, Harrison and others teaching our kids at major Universities – do you really believe that National Health Care will not go down the slippery slope to Death Panels and Euthanasia? Just Sayn !

Former Labor Secretary and Obama adviser Robert Reich speaking at UC Berkeley on Sept. 26, 2007

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you, and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health-care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. [laughter] That’s true, and what I’m going to do is I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you–particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people–you’re going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.

And by the way, we are going to have to–if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die. [applause]

“Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid–we already have a lot of bargaining leverage–to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you.”

Are these the people we want in charge of our health care?

For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here: http://www.maafa21.com

Note the documentation to “Sterilants in the Water Supply”

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Also Read: Death Panels? Is it possible?

READ MORE HERE: Death Panels, Eugenics, Rationing, Quality adjusted life ? what does Uncle Sam think your Life Value is?

Princeton Philosopher: ‘Why Not Sterilize the Human Race and Party into Extinction?’

Posted in Peter Singer with tags , , , on June 9, 2010 by saynsumthn

By Peter J. Smith
NEW YORK, June 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Princeton philosopher Peter Singer one of the world’s foremost contemporary utilitarian philosophers infamous for his advocacy of infanticide, would like individuals to consider this question: would sterilizing the human race to spare future generations the pain of existence be a good idea?

In a blog post for the New York Times entitled “Should this be the last generation?” Singer discusses in glowing terms the thought of South African philosopher David Benatar. Singer calls Benator the “author of a fine book with an arresting title: ‘Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence.’”

“To bring into existence someone who will suffer is, Benatar argues, to harm that person, but to bring into existence someone who will have a good life is not to benefit him or her,” explains Singer.

Both Singer and Benatar both believe that human beings do not have inherent dignity. Singer, the Princeton Chair of Bioethics, has gained notoriety for asserting that infanticide is justifiable, especially for disabled infants, because they lack self-awareness, which he asserts is a requirement for personhood.

A key difference, however, between Singer and Benatar, an existential nihilist who chairs the Department of Philosophy at the University of Cape Town in South Africa, is that Singer believes life could be worth living in certain conditions. But Benatar flat out rejects existence as good, and the still-living author discusses that view in his controversial book.

Singer explains Benatar’s antinatalist philosophy, which bases its moral framework by weighing the consequences of existence, in this way: “everyone will suffer to some extent, and if our species continues to reproduce, we can be sure that some future children will suffer severely. Hence continued reproduction will harm some children severely, and benefit none.”

Singer then invites readers to engage in a thought experiment: “So why don’t we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required — we could party our way into extinction!”

“Even if we take a less pessimistic view of human existence than Benatar, we could still defend [this scenario], because it makes us better off — for one thing, we can get rid of all that guilt about what we are doing to future generations — and it doesn’t make anyone worse off, because there won’t be anyone else to be worse off,” he continued.

Singer distances himself from Benatar’s conclusions, however, and says, “I do think it would be wrong to choose the non-sentient universe.” Nevertheless, he said that for the human race to continue justifying reproducing itself over the next two centuries, individuals should ask themselves the hard questions of, “Is life worth living? Are the interests of a future child a reason for bringing that child into existence? And is the continuance of our species justifiable in the face of our knowledge that it will certainly bring suffering to innocent future human beings?”

Bioethicist Wesley J. Smith, a longtime critic of Singer’s work, responded to Singer’s recent article, saying, “This is nihilism on stilts and it is polluting the West’s self confidence and belief in universal human equality like the BP oil well is polluting the Caribbean.
“Only the resulting mess isn’t measured in polluted beaches and dead birds, but existential despair that destroys human lives.”
“Under the influence of anti-human advocates like Peter Singer, we have gone in the West from seeking to ‘secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity,’ to seriously questioning whether there should be any posterity at all,” Smith wrote on his blog. “This is not healthy. But it is the natural consequence of rejecting human exceptionalism.”