Archive for Infanticde

Dreaded Complication: Infants born alive during abortion haunt abortion profiteers

Posted in Uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 18, 2018 by saynsumthn

The abortion industry would like the public to believe that babies born alive after abortion attempts rarely occur. However, research shows that the so-called abortion live-birth dilemma has been haunting abortion profiteers since the days of legalization.

April 1973, Greater Bakersfield Hospital, Bakersfield, Calif.: A 4 1/2-pound infant was born live following a saline abortion (induced by an injection of salt solution) performed by Dr. Xavier Hall Ramirez. Informed by phone, Dr. Ramirez ordered two nurses to discontinue administering oxygen to the baby. His instructions were countermandated by another doctor; the baby survived and later was placed for adoption.

This above case was one of many highlighted by the Philadelphia Inquirer in a 1981 series entitled The Dreaded Complication.

The Dreaded Complication

Another example from the report described what a Nebraska abortion doctor ordered a nurse, who found a live baby boy crying following a saline abortion attempt, to do. She told the paper the following: “He told me to leave it where it was, just to watch it for a few minutes, that it would probably die in a few minutes.”

In another case from 1974, the paper recounted the prostaglandin abortion of a baby who survived the procedure, only to die later: “One of the nurses said that the baby was alive. They took the baby out of the room. He never did cry, he just made some kind of a noise.”

A young resident was the first doctor to arrive. After detecting a strong heartbeat, she took matters into her own hands. She clamped the umbilical cord and sent the baby to intensive care.

“It was a shock, a totally unique emergency situation, very upsetting to all of us,” the doctor said. “Some people have disagreed with me [about ordering intensive care for an abortion live birth] but that seems to me the only way you can go. It’s like watching a drowning. You act. You don’t have the luxury of calling around and consulting. You institute life-preserving measures first and decide about viability later on.”

In 1989,  Pennsylvania abortion doctor Joseph Melnick was convicted of infanticide after it was proven that a baby he aborted survived the abortion. Hospital staffers where the abortion occurred said that they had detected a heartbeat and saw the baby move and gasp. For this crime, Live Action News contributor Sarah Terzo reported that the judge gave him no fine or jail time – only probation and community service.

By the 1990’s additional incidents of babies surviving abortion were being reported.

In Florida, Miami Right to Life documented the case of a 23-week-old male with Down syndrome, who pro-lifers endearingly named “Baby Special,” after they were contacted by an anonymous caller who claimed she worked at the hospital where the incident occurred. The witness also called the police, telling them that the doctor smothered the baby after it lived through the abortion process.

The report, which was published in the Miami Right to Life’s newsletter just after the incident, said that the medical examiner testified that the autopsy found pockets of air in the baby’s stomach and that the child had taken a breath.

“When a fetus is aborted, sometimes there is some activity in the fetus and you normally don’t do anything. You let the fetus expire. The usual thing is just to take your time, don’t immediately do anything,” the abortionist told authorities. Authorities cleared the doctor saying there was no clear evidence that he smothered the baby.

Image: Baby Born Alive during abortion

Baby Special a Down Syndrome baby who survived abortion attempt

In 1993, a New York abortion doctor was convicted of performing an illegal third-trimester abortion which resulted in him severing the arm of a baby which survived his abortion attempt. The public was horrified by the story, causing the abortion doctor, Dr. Abu Hayat, to be nicknamed the Butcher of Avenue A.

The baby’s 20-year-old mother, Rosa Rodriguez, was estimated to be about eight months pregnant when Hayat began the $1500.00 abortion procedure on her.

Image: Baby born alive during abortion

Ana Rosa Rodriguez baby born alive during abortion with missing arm

According to the Daily News, Rodriguez described being strapped in stirrups and held down by Hayat and his assistants while she begged him to stop the abortion. She testified that she no longer wanted the abortion after Hayat inserted a four-inch needle in her stomach that appeared dirty, and she began hearing women in other rooms screaming.

Hayat was found guilty of assault on Rosa Rodriguez and her baby Ana Rosa.

After the incident, pro-abortion talk show host, Phil Donahue had the child’s mother as well as the injured infant as a guest on his television show where he described the horror of the incident. Despite the fact that Hayat practiced legally, Donahue attempted to spin the story as unrelated to the abortion issue. The truth is that every day, infants are ripped apart limb by limb during abortions – but the majority are not born alive.

In June of 1993, abortionist Abu Hayat was sentenced to prison but was released on parole in 2006. He was discharged from parole supervision in 2009 and his sentence has been officially deemed completed. He tried to have his name changed but a judge refused his request to do so.

Image: Baby Born Alive During Abortion

Ana Rosa Rodriguez lost an arm in a failed abortion attempt

Doctors who perform late-term abortions or any abortion for that matter, often convince themselves that a preborn baby is not a person. This distorted view then is easily transferred onto the child if they survive the abortion attempt. An example of this was seen in an interview with late-term abortionist Kenneth Edelin.

In this discussion taped in the 1990’s, Edelin referred to the preborn child in the womb as a “developing mass of tissue within the woman.”

In the early 1970’s Edelin was charged with manslaughter in the death of a 20 to 24-week old baby boy after an abortion. The prosecution claimed that the Boston abortionist tried to asphyxiate the child inside the mother during a C-section type abortion procedure.

The Boston Globe recounted the case this way:

The abortion, which took place in 1973, began as a routine procedure: the injection of a saline solution that usually causes uterine contractions and the expulsion of the fetus. But several tries were unsuccessful, and Edelin completed the abortion by a surgical procedure known as a hysterotomy — making a small incision in the uterus, like a cesarean section, and detaching the fetus from the placental wall by hand.

A photo of the child preserved in formaldehyde was shown to the jurors.

“It looked like a baby,” a juror in the original case told the Associated Press. “[…] it definitely had an effect on me.”

The photo was called inflammatory by the defense, but it had already had an effect on the jury. Edelin’s lawyers argued that since the child was in the uterus, a “person” had never existed, so therefore a person had never died. Edelin was convicted, but it was later overturned.

Edelin, who died in 2013 has been called a hero by Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps the most famous abortion survivor is Melissa Ohden. In 1977, Ohden survived a saline abortion at seven months gestation. In 2012 she formed The Abortion Survivors Network and now works to educate the public on the realities of abortion and how often babies survive the attempt on their lives.

Gianna Jessen also survived a saline abortion and has shared her survival story through speeches and testimonials before the government.

Abortionists don’t want people to know that babies survive abortions, but each of these individuals proves that life really does begin before birth. It is the duty of each of us to respect those lives and allow them the right to be lived.

    • This article is reprinted with permission. The original appeared here at Live Action News.

Disabled animals get reprieve from slaughter while babies do not

Posted in Euthanasia, Euthanesia with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 5, 2016 by saynsumthn

As abortion continues to target the disabled for a tortuous death, a disabled steer in Texas has received a reprieve after activists speak out. Oatmeal, the blind steer was scheduled for slaughter after being auctioned in Texas at the Fort Worth Stock Show’s Sale of Champions.

According to news reports, Oatmeal’s story struck a nerve among animal rights activists, vegans and others.

Oatmeal Steer Cow Abortion

The Fort Worth Star Telegraph reported what happened next:

    “As activists took to social media in an effort to rescue the steer, Oatmeal waited at a feedlot in South Texas.

    “Now he is bound for College Station, where he was expected to arrive late Friday or early Saturday, said state Rep. Charlie Geren, vice president of the Stock Show, who worked the deal with A&M Chancellor John Sharp.”

Oatmeal Steer Cow FB

In an effort to save Oatmeal, one supporter commented:

    “That poor steer. He trusted humans his entire life, and now, trustingly, he will go with them and be led to his death. How very sad.”

I am an animal lover and I understand the compassion that anyone would have toward this animal. But, what I cannot understand is the complete disconnect many in society have towards the disabled preborn child, a human baby, selected for abortion. You know, one of the reasons we legalized abortion on demand in America was because we believed that a child with medical issues was of less value than a so-called healthy one. And, sadly, this idea was introduced by many American churches whose abortion resolutions led the way for the language which was later written into the Roe v. Wade abortion decision. Today, many of those religious institutions have repented and reversed their stand to oppose abortion, but, tragically, the damage was already done.

Today, disabled preborn children are some of the most vulnerable children in the United States. Pregnant mothers are often pressured into aborting these children by medical “professionals” who believe the life of a disabled preborn child is not worth saving. In many cases, the diagnoses rendered is not nearly as horrific as pregnant women are led to believe. But, even when the diagnosis proves as tragic as expected does that give us the right to devalue that life and send that child to slaughter like an animal?

And, this kind of inhumane targeting is not reserved only for preborn children in the womb. In fact, because of the way we view these children, they remain vulnerable even after they are born and even when they are so-called “wanted” by their parents.

Simon  inspired Simon's Law

Simon inspired Simon’s Law

Enter little Simon Crosier who was labeled by the medical establishment as “incompatible with life” after he was born with Trisomy 18. His mother, Sheryl Crosier said doctors encouraged her to have an abortion when her 20 week ultrasound revealed that their unborn son might have a cleft lip, she refused. But, even though Sheryl and her husband wanted Simon, he died December 3, 2010, 88 ½ days after his birth, after health care workers refused to medically treat him as any other child. The couple discovered this after they reviewed his medical records.

Today, Sheryl warns parents that this could happen to any child at any age. She said that a child could fall off a bicycle and hit their head or end up in the ICU after a car accident.

    “Are you going to allow your physician that you met for the first time to determine the value of your child? Or do you want to be the one making their medical decisions? Parents need to realize their parental rights can be taken away and violated.”

As a result of Simon’s tragic and unnecessary death, in December of 2014, the couple attempted unsuccessfully to get Simon’s Law passed in the state of Missouri. On February 16, 2016 Simon’s Law was again introduced in the Missouri state legislature by State Rep Bill Kidd. HB1915, which has yet to make it out of Committee, has two basic components. First a health care facility must let a patient, resident or a prospective patient or resident know if they have a futility policy that will limit care in any way. Second, a do-not-resuscitate order cannot be placed in a minor child’s medical file without the written permission of at least one parent or legal guardian.

Sheryl told Live Action News that a similar law in Kansas will be heard there this week. SB437, also dubbed Simon’s Law was introduced on February 10th is expected to be heard Thursday March 3, 2016 by the Kansas Committee on Public Health and Welfare. She said that she is optimistic that the law will pass but stressed that the law needs to be adopted nationally.

    “There is a need for ‪Simons Law‬ nationwide. In many hospitals across ‪‎America‬ it is legal for a ‪‎child‬ to be denied life-sustaining care and for a ‘‪‎Do Not Resuscitate‬’ order (‪‎DNR‬) to be placed on a child’s medical chart without parental knowledge or consent.”

Simon and Sheryl Crosier

Simon and Sheryl Crosier

Sheryl is encouraging everyone to sign Simon’s Law Petition and she is looking to get this law into other states. “This is happening everywhere. Parents deserve to know what is going on with their child,” she said.

If anyone is interested in filing Simon’s Law in their state, Sheryl said that they can contact her by e-mail at simonismyname@att.net and they can get updates on Simon’s Law by following them on Facebook and on their website.

Cuba persecuted pro-life doc has connection to American abortion doctor

Posted in Communist, Cuba with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on August 14, 2015 by saynsumthn

Today, due to Obama administration policies with Cuba, the US flag is being raised in the communist country. In addition, the Cuban embassy reopened in Washington last month for the first time since the 1960’s.

Flag CUba

Having lived among large Cuban Americans for many years, I have a personal objection to this move much in line with Marco Rubio. The regime in Cuba has not been freedom loving but has restricted religion and free speech, even imprisoning many Cuban dissidents. But, politics aside, for now, there are abortion ties to this regime that the pro-life community may be unaware of.

Oscar's Cuba

Filmmaker Jordan Allott’s documentary film, “Oscar’s Cuba” highlights the persecution that one Cuban pro-life doctor faced when they opposed the regime’s abortion policies.

From an NBC Miami affiliate:

OScar Bissett

    Dr. Oscar Biscet is described as “Cuba’s forgotten hero.” Allott had never heard of Biscet until a Catholic priest friend had alerted the film producer to the Cuban dissident movement. He quickly realized that the Biscet story was powerful.

    Biscet was a young doctor with a promising career takes on the Fidel Castro government. He protested the rampant abortions encouraged by the regime. He was vocal about civil rights, human rights, the ability to speak freely, and to assemble.

    None of this went down well for the doctor, who was praised by fellow dissidents, admired by Cuban Exiles,and honored by with U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom.

    Biscet is now serving a 25-year sentence for disorderly conduct and counter-revolutionary activities.

Biscet spoke out against Cuba’s policies of allowing aborted children born alive to be killed. Any surprise that his story has not been told in America?

According to the website of Oscar’s Cuba:

    Dr. Biscet was sentenced to 25 years in prison and has been held in some of the harshest conditions experienced by any prisoners in Cuba, including in punishment cells and solitary confinement. This is Dr. Biscet’s second stint in prison. Biscet first ran afoul of the Castro regime in the 1990s, when he investigated Cuban abortion techniques – Cuba has by far the highest abortion rates in the Western Hemisphere – and revealed that numerous infants had been killed after being delivered alive. The report was sent to Fidel Castro with un-official statistics and testimonies from mothers who described the infanticide. Biscet was arrested and served three years in a prison camp after publishing this article condemning abortion. Officially, Biscet was imprisoned for the crime of “disrespect.” After he was released in 2002, Biscet was again arrested, after only a month of freedom, during Cuba’s Black Spring.

Dr Oscar Biscet

Dr. Biscet suffered immensely under the regime.

Replica of Cuban cell

According to the documentary filmmaker, a letter smuggled from the doctor’s prison, entitled Civil Disobedience, Biscet wrote, “The people of Cuba have been suffering the scorn of a totalitarian tyranny, Communism, throughout four decades. Due to this inhumane treatment whereby the decorum of a people is violated, many Cubans are indignant and have risen up to pray and fast, beseeching the God of the Bible…we must expedite the achievement of these basic rights through civil disobedience and by putting into practice all methods to obtain our humanitarian aim.” Biscet pledged, “Here, in this dark jail where they force me to live, I will be resisting until the freedom of my people is obtained.”

The doctor was later honored with the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bush.

According to the Population Research Institute:

    Abortion and contraception are very common in Cuba, since they are promoted by the State through the media, the school system and the health care system, all of which are controlled by the State. Pro-contraceptive sex education is taught in the schools to our children from an early age.

    Certain statements by Dr. Sosa Marin, President of the Cuban Society for the Development of the Family (SOCUDEF – an International Planned Parenthood Federation [IPPF] Affiliate) and of the National Commission for Family Planning, clearly indicate this:

    Cuba accepts and supports since 1959, the sovereign right of women and their partners to freely decide their reproduction issues. The State guarantees, through our health system, the necessary attention before and after birth, in cases of infertility or when birth is not desired. In such cases, the State guarantees the right to decide, allowing recourse to contraceptives. Similarly, the right to abort is the right of women and their partners, and that is why they are offered this institutional service with a high level of medical safety.

In addition, POP.org reports that Cubca openly participates in infanticide citing eye witness accounts from , Dr. Carlos Ciro Machado who related to TV Marti that when he saw a premature baby in a bucket he was told to let the baby die because it might die in spite of medical care and raise the infant mortality rate. Dr, Machado then called the head nurse and she said the same thing. Despite their opposition Dr. Machado gave the baby medical care, but the baby died anyway six hours later. Cuba is more interested in its international image than in caring for the health of its people, said Dr. Machado.

Castro government funded abortion doctor’s education in Cuba!

In has been my experience that many abortion doctors during the early days of legalized abortion were recruited from communist countries like Cuba. Although I have not fully researched this recently, I did make this observation many years ago after looking at the history of abortion doctors in Miami and the Florida area.

Carmen-LandauLive-Action-III-e1371476897334

One current example is an abortionist who compared abortion injections to a “flu shot” and received her medical training in Cuba, and, according to the Daily Caller, was fully funded by the regime of Fidel Castro, returned to the U.S. planning to advocate for universal health care.

The information came to lights after the pro-life organization Live Action highlighted an exchange between Carmen Landau, of the Southwest Women’s Options abortion clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and one of their 24-week pregnant undercover “investigators.”

And it is not like you and I, where when we get a flu shot, we’re kind of ‘Ugh!’ not — that — that experience of anxiety and suffering is not — it’s not capable of,” she explained, based on Live Action’s recording. “And so that, I think, helps us all to feel more comfortable with this.

Southwestern Women’s Options in Albuquerque performs elective abortions through 28 weeks, according to the clinic’s website.

Reuters Cuba 1

According to a 2007 report in Reuters, which features pictures of Landau, she was one of eight Americans who graduated from a Cuban medical school that year, after six years of fully funded education from the Castro government.

Reuters Cuba 2

Cuba offered us full scholarships to study medicine here. In exchange, we commit ourselves to go back to our communities to provide health care to underserved people,” Landau told Reuters at the time.

The Reuters report noted that the graduation ceremony took place at the Karl Marx theater in Havana (the ailing Fidel Castro was not in attendance). Thanks to aid from the Castro government, students graduated debt-free.

Read more from the Daily Caller’s report.

sws-options1-497x280-1-320x198

A pro-life group in New Mexico where the Southwestern Women’s Options abortion clinic performs late term abortions has accused the center of participating in the same gruesome baby parts harvesting operation as was recently exposed by the Center for Medical Progress about Planned Parenthood.

Tara Shaver of the Albuquerque pro-life group, Protest ABQ recently filed a formal criminal complaint with the Attorney General of New Mexico asking for a complete and thorough investigation of the facility in the state after revelations emerged that Planned Parenthood was taking part in a gruesome baby parts operation.

Tara Shaver said that the allegations are based on documents obtained by prolifewitness.org that indicate SWO staff members, “are, in fact, harvesting baby body parts for use in medical research.”

This is in violation of the following New Mexico statutes,” she added.

Copies of the documents were sent to Saynsumthn and contained Southwestern Women’s Options (SWO) informed consent paperwork that every abortion patient must sign indicating that Boyd and (SWO) may be using aborted babies in medical research.

2015-abortion-consent-Fetal-SWO-Curtis-Boyd

The 2015 consent form (image above) states:

    “I understand that the pregnancy tissue will be removed from my body during this procedure. The pregnancy tissue may be examined here at the Clinic and the Clinic doctors may dispose of the tissue according to the law. The pregnancy tissue may be used for medical research.”

This consent form from 2012 (image below) says, “tissue and parts will be removed during the procedure.”

2012-Abortion-Consent-Southwestern-abortion-Boys-fetal-harvest

The form goes on to state, “and I consent to their examination and their use in medical research and their disposal by the clinic and/or physician in the manner they deem appropriate.”

Protest ABQ pointed out that the abortion clinic’s agreement is mandatory for the patient, not optional.

Boyd-Southwestern-abortion-consent-fetal-tissue

The fact that Southwestern Women’s Options has a stipulation on their consent form stating that aborted baby parts may be used in medical research proves that SWO is in violation of New Mexico law. This stipulation should not be on their consent form, but reiterates the fact that abortionists believe that they can operate above both local and federal law,” the pro-lifers said.

The pro-life group said they contacted the State’s Attorney General with their formal complaint because New Mexico has a law prohibiting the selling of body parts.

Read more here.

Peter Singer decade of controversy: Infanticide and Death Panels?

Posted in Abortion, Animal Rights, Death Panels, Eugenics, Holdren, Infanticide, Maafa21, Peter Singer with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 27, 2009 by saynsumthn

Peter Singer reflects on a decade at Princeton
The Daily Princetonian By Jason Jung
Contributor
Published: Monday, October 26th, 2009

When bioethics professor Peter Singer joined Princeton’s faculty in fall 1999, he expected “good students” and “good seminars,” but he never anticipated the backlash: a large-scale protest against his appointment that included the arrest of 14 activists outside Nassau Hall on Sept. 21, 1999.

Over the course of his first 10 years at Princeton, Singer, whom many view as the most influential applied ethics theorist in the world, has been a divisive figure, garnering attention from alumni, students and faculty who disagree with his controversial opinions and from those who laud his academic prowess and his openness to alternate viewpoints.

While Singer is largely praised for his work pioneering the modern animal rights movement, affirming moral obligations to alleviate extreme poverty and defending nonviolent civil disobedience, he has created controversy with his views on infanticide, abortion and medical treatment of the severely disabled, said former politics professor George Kateb, who chaired the search committee that recruited Singer.

When it comes to killing, I do believe that beings have different interests in continuing to live,” Singer said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian last week. “I think killing a being that wants to continue to live and has designs for the future is very different from killing those that do not.”

Kateb said that though he thought Singer sometimes “went too far” with his arguments dealing with death, the decision to hire the Australian philosopher was the right one.

The protest against Singer’s appointment in 1999 involved hundreds of demonstrators, who blocked the entrances to Nassau Hall for hours. The disability rights advocacy group Not Dead Yet organized the protest, which was aimed at the University for hiring Singer rather than at the professor, said Stephen Drake, a research analyst for the organization.

This was somebody they sought out in particular for his provocative views,” Drake said. “Part of our demands at that time was that they threw out their commitment to community principles, and we asked them to admit it.”

Drake added that he takes issue with Singer “as a polemicist,” not in his role as a philosopher.

People with disabilities need to be treated with the same respect and with the same values as the rest of the population,” he said. “It’s that simple. Peter Singer disagrees with it. Not only does he disagree with that, what he’s suggesting is changing public policy. He’s out there not as an expert trying to give an objective opinion. He’s out there trying to push his own agenda. How we viewed Singer then is how we view him now.

Singer said he and then-acting University president Harold Shapiro GS ’64 also received death threats during the first few months after his appointment.

Shapiro said the death threat did not faze him. “You get all kinds of mail when you’re the head of an organization, some of which is very insulting and very threatening and so on,” Shapiro said.

But Singer said the threat was worrisome, though he wouldn’t leave because of it. “Obviously I was concerned, but I also felt that you can’t give in to that kind of stuff,” Singer explained. “You have to continue to stand up for things you believe in. I certainly wasn’t going to go back to Australia or change my views, so there wasn’t really much choice.”

Singer’s appointment also created waves of controversy among alumni, some of whom even said they would not donate any more money to the University as long as Singer served on its faculty.

I don’t agree with Princeton’s policy of promoting professors regardless of their worldview,” said Alan Moore ’71, a retired medical academic who stopped donating money to the University 10 years ago because of Singer’s appointment. Moore had worked with pediatric intensive care units trying to save infants and he said he took specific issue with Singer’s views on infanticide.

Princeton’s point of view I find morally repugnant,” he explained. “I can guarantee you that if there were a world-famous scholar that called for the extermination of all Jews, Princeton wouldn’t hire the professor. Princeton just accepts infanticide as a valid point of view. Only in an Eastern, liberal ivory tower setting can he espouse such a view.

Longtime donor and former trustee Steve Forbes ’70 also stopped giving money to the University as a result of Singer’s arrival on campus. Forbes could not be reached for comment.

On the other hand, Jennifer DePalma ’96, a philosophy major when she was an undergraduate, said she supported Princeton’s defense of academic freedom.

When you’re looking at the top schools, most of them are really, really good at giving their students access to any side of the political spectrum or whatever spectrum you’re looking at,” DePalma said. “They’re just trying to give access to as many different ways of thinking as they can. There’s a difference between that and Princeton saying they support infanticide.”

Shapiro said that, though he hadn’t expected the degree of opposition the University faced, the decision to invite Singer to join the faculty was a positive one for the intellectual life of the community.

A university is a place that is at all times questioning the values we have, not just committing to the views we have,” Shapiro explained. “One of the roles of a university is to question existing arrangements and maybe suggest better ways of going about things, of thinking about things. The notion that we should only appoint someone who signs up for a set of values is antithetical to the goals of a university. This would be a dull place if everyone thought the same way.”

He added, however, that Singer’s controversial views were not “part of the discussion” about whether to hire him. The appointment was approved because of the high recommendations given by “philosophers all over the world advising us about the nature of his work,” he added.
Despite the controversy, those responsible for hiring Singer stand by their choice.

It is, personally speaking, one of the very best things I’ve done in my academic life,” Kateb said. “If I were told beforehand that it would arouse all this anger … I still would have done it.”

Shapiro also said he does not regret approving Singer’s appointment. “My own assessment after having him as a colleague for 10 years is that it was and remains a terrific appointment,” he said. “His teaching is excellent, his work with students is terrific, he puts himself out to his students, he’s not at all rigid in his classes, and he encourages alternative points of view in his classes, or at least that’s what students tell me.”

Singer has also made a distinct impact on many current and former students, who said the philosopher has impressed and inspired them.
Will Fisher ’10 said he became a vegan three years ago after taking Singer’s freshman seminar, Ethics in Everyday Life, and has remained one since.
“I kind of had a coming of age of what the world was like,” Fisher said. “With regard to animal rights, we make decisions three times a day. You can’t deny that what you do every morning, every lunch and every dinner really has a serious effect.”

Fisher said that though some of Singer’s conclusions may be radical, the ethicist’s logic is “really good.”

He said, for example, that dealing with death as a moral concept is more complex than it may seem. Though many people would agree that “killing an innocent person is bad,” most people would say it would be justifiable to shoot down a man if “somebody put 20 pounds of explosives in his backpack, he doesn’t know it, and he’s about to walk into a crowded mall,” he added.

We actually hold a lot of convictions that he holds,” he said. “We just don’t think about it very rationally, and I think he’s very good at drawing it out.”

Singer said that he teaches philosophy with the aim of inspiring students to examine their actions and lives.

The overall goal is to stimulate people to think more deeply about ethical issues than they did before,” he explained. “I think most Princeton students would have thought about many of these issues on a fairly superficial level. I want to challenge them to think more deeply, to see the issues as something worth serious thought. If in fact it leads to some students thinking about the way they want to live, that’s a big bonus.”

Rik Sengupta ’12, a student in Singer’s only class this semester, CHV 310: Practical Ethics, said he was impressed by the rigor of the professor’s arguments.

“His sense of logic is impeccable,” Sengupta said. “They just follow mathematically. In terms of the logical structure he uses, you cannot argue with him. If there’s anything wrong, it would have to be his original assumptions.”

Though some students in the class said Singer presents biased arguments during his lectures, others insisted that he makes an effort to represent contrary views.

Kalila Minor ’11, another student in Practical Ethics, said that Singer invites academics who disagree with him to come to lectures to debate with him about issues such as abortion.

I was impressed with the extent to which he included opposing viewpoints,” she explained.

Outside classes, Singer also gives talks to student groups, invites visiting speakers and participates in discussions hosted by the Center for Human Values several times each semester, he said. Singer has also published several books in the past 10 years, including “The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty” earlier this year.

Singer said that though many philosophy professors focus on research, he has other goals as well.

[I] want to do some research and make some contributions to original topics, but it’s also important to connect with people, to try to get them to think more about ethical issues, to try to contribute to some shifts in the culture on major ethical questions,” he said. “It’s a dual role.”

Ten years after the protest sparked by his appointment, Singer said he has found University students and faculty to be “very open-minded.”

I think [Princeton] is a challenging place,” he added. “Over these 10 years, I don’t think it’s changed much really. I think the debates were good to start with. If anything, they’ve gotten better.”

Editor’s note
Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this article inaccurately referred to protests organized by Not Dead Yet and held at Nassau Hall in September 1999 as violent.
Diane Coleman, president of Not Dead Yet, also told The Daily Princetonian on Monday afternoon that that the group’s members are trained in nonviolence, and that the organization is not aware of any evidence that any of the death threats came from its members.
Original URL: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/10/26/24271/

August 26, 2008

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.

Harrison suggested that infanticide was a legitimate form of population control when he wrote this in his book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, from 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.“

Holdren asked this question in an article authored by him, which was published 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…“

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.

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 !