Peter Singer is an atheist. He is also a proponent of abortion.
Here are some of his quotes on why the right to abort a fetus based on its mental capacity should be extended a little further:
“My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.”
“The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness.”
“Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness… make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings.”
- Atheism and Child Murder, correlated by Wikipedia on Peter Singer
Get that? Peter Singer argues that fetuses in their mother’s womb can be legally, morally, ethically aborted because they have no conciousness… No self-awareness… No mind.
This is exactly what everyday pro-abortion groups argue.
The difference is that Peter Singer takes this argument to its logical conclusion – that since babies in the crib are similarly non-sentient, they should also be legal to ‘abort’.
Now, the everyday abortion-lover will decry such a horrific, monstrous worldview. That is not who we are!, they will protest.
But really, what’s the difference? Both are similarly un-sentient, un-self aware, not fully concious.
So by what logical disconnect do abortion supporters argue that killing babies in the playroom is worse than killing babies in their mother’s womb?
Is it because killing an infant is so visual and impacting, as opposed to a mother undergoing an abortion who does not see the bloody, gory mess that is ripped from her womb?
Bloody, gory mess such as in this video.
Because by 12 weeks (which is the First Trimester, totally legal to abort) the fetus already has hands, ribs and a face… Just like the 4-week old baby in the crib.
You go to this link, follow the links there to the pictures, and tell me you can guiltlessly go through with an abortion having those images in your mind.
Let’s take it further… If soundness of mind and mental activity is the criteria we use, then involuntary euthanasia of vegetable-ized hospital patients should be as legal as abortion.
Both the fetus and the mind-cripple do not have sentience or conciousness on par with human adults.
The only difference being, give them both another few months, and the fetus would be fully functioning and on its way to full sentience. Whereas the mental cripple would likely not.
So why is it moral to end the life of the fetus, but deplorable ‘eugenics’ to end the life of the mental handicap? Shouldn’t it be other way around? The fetus has up to 80 years more of life to go, the comatose geriatric only half a decade.
Oh, wait… Liberal doctors are already justifying their forced euthanasia of less-than-fully-sentient patients:
FIRST, Dutch euthanasia advocates said that patient killing will be limited to the competent, terminally ill who ask for it.
Then, when doctors began euthanizing patients who clearly were not terminally ill, sweat not, they soothed: medicalized killing will be limited to competent people with incurable illnesses or disabilities.
Then, when doctors began killing patients who were depressed but not physically ill, not to worry, they told us: only competent depressed people whose desire to commit suicide is “rational” will have their deaths facilitated.
Then, when doctors began killing incompetent people, such as those with Alzheimer’s, it’s all under control, they crooned: non-voluntary killing will be limited to patients who would have asked for it if they were competent.
And now they want to euthanize children.
Or imagine if your brain got zapped in some electromagnetic accident. Your conciousness and sentience get reset to zero, your vital systems cease to function without artificial aid.
However, you would begin to recover your thoughts in about, say, 9 months. After 5 more years, you’d be well on the road to 100% capability again.
How justified would it be to put you to sleep before those crucial 9 months had passed, on the basis of you having no discernible mental capacity? Would it be fair, knowing that you would begin to be self-aware after 9 months and then would become more sentient every day that passed?
So likewise, how justified is it to abort a human fetus before he or she is born, when it is certain that after 9 months he would be fully functioning physically and begin to develop full sentience not long after that?
How does killing an individual a few weeks before he gains full legal rights make it any more excusable?
To close, I conjecture that the pro-abortion liberal individual will never even attempt to address the logic that Peter Singer demonstrates.
Because if they agree with him that the right to live should be basd on mental capacity, that means that they advocate the legalized murder of infants less than a month old.
Whereas if they disagree with him that the right to live should be basd on mental capacity, that means they are guilty of the murder of 1.2 million human beings every single month.
A false dilemma? Less false than you might think.
As this report says, if the baby is killed with chemicals or a scalpel while in the mothers womb… It is a legal abortion.
If it is aborted yet survives the attempt, but left to die in the clinic… It is murder.
Killing a baby in a crib = MURDER
Killing a pregnant woman = DOUBLE MURDER (one for the woman, one for the unborn child)
Killing a baby in the womb = LEGAL ABORTION
Abortion is murder, any way you try and spin it.