Science > Abortion > I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2007 06:55:48 PM |
| Object: |
I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious stand
on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a disabled
baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best interests of
the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the
logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer saying,
"at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support a
woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer said,
"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 foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is no
inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
Asked about the choice between killing 10 cows or a human, Singer said
he would kill the cows, but not because they were of less value, but
because humans would mourn the death more. "I've written that it is
much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future,
and who plans for the future. Normal humans have such plans, but I
don't think cows do. And normal humans have family and friends who will
grieve their death in ways more vivid and longer-lasting than the way
cows may care about other cows. (Although a cow certainly misses her
calf for a long time, if the calf is taken from her. That's why there
is a major ethical problem with dairy products.) If I really had to
make such a decision, I'd kill the cows."
Schadenberg commented saying, "Once again Singer is making distinctions
between human beings he would consider normal and those he would
consider not normal, thus he is deciding who is a person and who is
not. Non-persons are allowed to be killed." The Euthanasia Prevention
Coalition leader concluded, "even though Singer does not like to be
compared to the Nazi's especially since his parents died in the
Holocaust, his philosophical position is identical to what the Nazi's
proposed. The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition is primarily concerned
for the lives of people with disabilities and other vulnerable
persons."
See the whole interview:
http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article1466409.ece
.
|
|
| User: "turk" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
12 Jan 2007 09:51:58 PM |
|
|
"Sound of Trumpet" <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> wrote in message
news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Asked about the choice between killing 10 cows or a human, Singer said
he would kill the cows,
Are you the human? I don't believe Singer has met you. Might change his
mind on that one.
turk
--
The priests of the different religious sects ... dread the advance of
science as witches do the approach of daylight, and scowl on the fatal
harbinger announcing the subdivision of the duperies on which they live.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
12 Jan 2007 07:47:52 PM |
|
|
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious
stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a
disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best
interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the
logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support
a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer
said, "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 foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is the
proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other than
himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other person's
individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
--
Wentzky's Wonderful Websearch
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=018436860231047624162%3Axnlyf_8tuni
http://www.shadowshopper.com/index.cfm?adid=10212
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-GoodEnergy
http://goodenergyzdmbo.blogspot.com
http://bloggfordollars.blogspot.com
http://johndwentzky.infinitehosting.net
http://johndwentzky.hostme3.com
Copyright İ John D. Wentzky
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
12 Jan 2007 09:19:03 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious
stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a
disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best
interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the
logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support
a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer
said, "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 foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is the
proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other than
himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other person's
individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Wood" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
22 Jan 2007 02:42:10 PM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious
stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a
disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best
interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the
logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support
a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer
said, "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 foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is the
proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other than
himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other person's
individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
I doubt this is exactly true. So if they are brain dead or otherwise
have no possible chance of survival: then why keep them alive
through artifical support and other heroic measures?
Dan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
23 Jan 2007 04:29:20 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 15:42:10 -0500, "Dan Wood" <drwood@bellsouth.net>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com...
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious
stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a
disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best
interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the
logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support
a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer
said, "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 foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is the
proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other than
himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other person's
individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
I doubt this is exactly true. So if they are brain dead or otherwise
have no possible chance of survival: then why keep them alive
through artifical support and other heroic measures?
Dan
You are exactly right, the State will cut of funds if the Doctors.
have no hope for the Ill person, even if it's a child recovering.
Family has ten day's to either find the funds or a charity that will
waste money on a hopeless case.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
12 Jan 2007 09:22:40 PM |
|
|
In article <45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious
stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a
disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best
interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the
logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support
a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer
said, "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 foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is the
proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other than
himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other person's
individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
Thatıs todayıs Republicans for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
14 Jan 2007 05:35:54 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:22:40 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious
stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a
disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best
interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the
logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support
a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer
said, "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 foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is the
proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other than
himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other person's
individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
Thatıs todayıs Republicans for you.
Do you idiots not have any idea how utterly stupid it is for those of
your ilk to ***** and moan and groan about Bush being pro-life and
anti-abortion and then post something like this?
Gawd Damn!...
You people are so fucking stupid!
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sylvia R. Dickinson" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
14 Jan 2007 07:59:47 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:22:40 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversi=
al
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious
stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a
disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best
interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is =
the
logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they suppo=
rt
a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer
said, "One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is tha=
t,
from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no
sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is the
proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other than
himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other pers=
on's
individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
That=B9s today=B9s Republicans for you.
Do you idiots not have any idea how utterly stupid it is for those of
your ilk to ***** and moan and groan about Bush being pro-life and
anti-abortion and then post something like this?
Gawd Damn!...
You people are so fucking stupid!
To whom are you referring?
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
14 Jan 2007 10:49:19 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2007 05:59:47 -0800, "Sylvia R. Dickinson"
<sylviadickinson@bluebottle.com> wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 19:22:40 -0800, "David W. Barnes"
<dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today, controversial
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats his notorious
stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked, "Would you kill a
disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that was in the best
interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is the
logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they support
a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his point, Singer
said, "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 foetus and the newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is the
proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other than
himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other person's
individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
Thatıs todayıs Republicans for you.
Do you idiots not have any idea how utterly stupid it is for those of
your ilk to ***** and moan and groan about Bush being pro-life and
anti-abortion and then post something like this?
Gawd Damn!...
You people are so fucking stupid!
To whom are you referring?
It was supposed to be Kate but I screwed it up.
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
Krist.
The statement was worse than misleading, it was dishonest and
dishonorable.
Sheesh!
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sylvia R. Dickinson" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
15 Jan 2007 07:46:24 AM |
|
|
wrote:
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anarcissie" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says George W. Bush |
15 Jan 2007 08:55:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
This is just silly:
"In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
The relevant Wikipedia articles indicate that those who are removed
from life support systems are not necessarily infants (although the
first to go was) and not necessarily poor. It is really interesting
that
George Bush, who strokes and is stroked by the "culture of Life" folks
so incessantly, signed this bill, as well as starting wars that killed
hundreds of thousands of people as well as dozens of death
warrants. This is a lot more interesting than Peter Singer, who
hasn't had the chance to kill anybody. Here's the rubber meeting
the road. And where are all the self-styled pro-lifers? Lying low.
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home#1554" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says George W. Bush |
16 Jan 2007 08:46:27 PM |
|
|
Anarcissie wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
"In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
The relevant Wikipedia articles indicate that those who are removed
from life support systems are not necessarily infants (although the
first to go was) and not necessarily poor. It is really interesting
that
George Bush, who strokes and is stroked by the "culture of Life" folks
so incessantly, signed this bill, as well as starting wars that killed
hundreds of thousands of people as well as dozens of death
warrants.
Hundreds of thousands?
Not quite.
And which death warrants?
It wasn't quite clear.
This is a lot more interesting than Peter Singer, who
hasn't had the chance to kill anybody. Here's the rubber meeting
the road. An>d where are all the self-styled pro-lifers? Lying low.
I would have to read a source other than Wikipedia but I don't agree
with shutting off life support simply for financial reasons.
Unless, and this is a biggie, unless multiple physicians are required
to evaluate the circumstances and determine the patient cannot be
helped.
Still, its a slippery slope I'm not sure we want to chance.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says George W. Bush |
17 Jan 2007 01:47:58 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2007 18:46:27 -0800, "atheist@home#1554"
<rdavis2@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
Anarcissie wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
"In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
The relevant Wikipedia articles indicate that those who are removed
from life support systems are not necessarily infants (although the
first to go was) and not necessarily poor. It is really interesting
that
George Bush, who strokes and is stroked by the "culture of Life" folks
so incessantly, signed this bill, as well as starting wars that killed
hundreds of thousands of people as well as dozens of death
warrants.
Hundreds of thousands?
Not quite.
And which death warrants?
It wasn't quite clear.
This is a lot more interesting than Peter Singer, who
hasn't had the chance to kill anybody. Here's the rubber meeting
the road. An>d where are all the self-styled pro-lifers? Lying low.
I would have to read a source other than Wikipedia but I don't agree
with shutting off life support simply for financial reasons.
Unless, and this is a biggie, unless multiple physicians are required
to evaluate the circumstances and determine the patient cannot be
helped.
Still, its a slippery slope I'm not sure we want to chance.
I have made it very clear that I despise George Bush.
I have noted that the people that posted this have removed a key word
from their complaint, that word is terminal. Which means the Texas tax
payers will no longer pay to keep a person alive for a indefinite
period. One of the few decent things he has done.
atheist@home#1554
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says George W. Bush |
17 Jan 2007 10:40:02 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:47:58 -0800, Robert <robpar@netportusa.com>
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 18:46:27 -0800, "atheist@home#1554"
<rdavis2@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
Anarcissie wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
"In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
The relevant Wikipedia articles indicate that those who are removed
from life support systems are not necessarily infants (although the
first to go was) and not necessarily poor. It is really interesting
that
George Bush, who strokes and is stroked by the "culture of Life" folks
so incessantly, signed this bill, as well as starting wars that killed
hundreds of thousands of people as well as dozens of death
warrants.
Hundreds of thousands?
Not quite.
And which death warrants?
It wasn't quite clear.
This is a lot more interesting than Peter Singer, who
hasn't had the chance to kill anybody. Here's the rubber meeting
the road. An>d where are all the self-styled pro-lifers? Lying low.
I would have to read a source other than Wikipedia but I don't agree
with shutting off life support simply for financial reasons.
Unless, and this is a biggie, unless multiple physicians are required
to evaluate the circumstances and determine the patient cannot be
helped.
Still, its a slippery slope I'm not sure we want to chance.
I have made it very clear that I despise George Bush.
I have noted that the people that posted this have removed a key word
from their complaint, that word is terminal. Which means the Texas tax
payers will no longer pay to keep a person alive for a indefinite
period. One of the few decent things he has done.
You don't make a law that makes that decision for you. It's not
decent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home#1554" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says George W. Bush |
18 Jan 2007 06:47:43 PM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:47:58 -0800, Robert <robpar@netportusa.com>
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 18:46:27 -0800, "atheist@home#1554"
<rdavis2@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
Anarcissie wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
"In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
The relevant Wikipedia articles indicate that those who are removed
from life support systems are not necessarily infants (although the
first to go was) and not necessarily poor. It is really interesting
that
George Bush, who strokes and is stroked by the "culture of Life" folks
so incessantly, signed this bill, as well as starting wars that killed
hundreds of thousands of people as well as dozens of death
warrants.
Hundreds of thousands?
Not quite.
And which death warrants?
It wasn't quite clear.
This is a lot more interesting than Peter Singer, who
hasn't had the chance to kill anybody. Here's the rubber meeting
the road. An>d where are all the self-styled pro-lifers? Lying low.
I would have to read a source other than Wikipedia but I don't agree
with shutting off life support simply for financial reasons.
Unless, and this is a biggie, unless multiple physicians are required
to evaluate the circumstances and determine the patient cannot be
helped.
Still, its a slippery slope I'm not sure we want to chance.
I have made it very clear that I despise George Bush.
I have noted that the people that posted this have removed a key word
from their complaint, that word is terminal. Which means the Texas tax
payers will no longer pay to keep a person alive for a indefinite
period. One of the few decent things he has done.
You don't make a law that makes that decision for you. It's not
decent.
No its not.
But it is dangerous.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says George W. Bush |
18 Jan 2007 04:54:08 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jan 2007 22:40:02 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:47:58 -0800, Robert <robpar@netportusa.com>
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 18:46:27 -0800, "atheist@home#1554"
<rdavis2@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
Anarcissie wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
"In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
The relevant Wikipedia articles indicate that those who are removed
from life support systems are not necessarily infants (although the
first to go was) and not necessarily poor. It is really interesting
that
George Bush, who strokes and is stroked by the "culture of Life" folks
so incessantly, signed this bill, as well as starting wars that killed
hundreds of thousands of people as well as dozens of death
warrants.
Hundreds of thousands?
Not quite.
And which death warrants?
It wasn't quite clear.
This is a lot more interesting than Peter Singer, who
hasn't had the chance to kill anybody. Here's the rubber meeting
the road. An>d where are all the self-styled pro-lifers? Lying low.
I would have to read a source other than Wikipedia but I don't agree
with shutting off life support simply for financial reasons.
Unless, and this is a biggie, unless multiple physicians are required
to evaluate the circumstances and determine the patient cannot be
helped.
Still, its a slippery slope I'm not sure we want to chance.
I have made it very clear that I despise George Bush.
I have noted that the people that posted this have removed a key word
from their complaint, that word is terminal. Which means the Texas tax
payers will no longer pay to keep a person alive for a indefinite
period. One of the few decent things he has done.
You don't make a law that makes that decision for you. It's not
decent.
Stopping the waste of time and money is the decent thing to do.
I pulled the plug on my father and brother when it was apparent that
they were hopeless. And have advanced DNR papers on file with my
Doctor. Keeping a person that is terminal on life support is cruel to
the person and his family.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home#1554" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says George W. Bush |
18 Jan 2007 06:49:50 PM |
|
|
Robert wrote:
On 17 Jan 2007 22:40:02 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:47:58 -0800, Robert <robpar@netportusa.com>
wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 18:46:27 -0800, "atheist@home#1554"
<rdavis2@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
Anarcissie wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
"In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
The relevant Wikipedia articles indicate that those who are removed
from life support systems are not necessarily infants (although the
first to go was) and not necessarily poor. It is really interesting
that
George Bush, who strokes and is stroked by the "culture of Life" folks
so incessantly, signed this bill, as well as starting wars that killed
hundreds of thousands of people as well as dozens of death
warrants.
Hundreds of thousands?
Not quite.
And which death warrants?
It wasn't quite clear.
This is a lot more interesting than Peter Singer, who
hasn't had the chance to kill anybody. Here's the rubber meeting
the road. An>d where are all the self-styled pro-lifers? Lying low.
I would have to read a source other than Wikipedia but I don't agree
with shutting off life support simply for financial reasons.
Unless, and this is a biggie, unless multiple physicians are required
to evaluate the circumstances and determine the patient cannot be
helped.
Still, its a slippery slope I'm not sure we want to chance.
I have made it very clear that I despise George Bush.
I have noted that the people that posted this have removed a key word
from their complaint, that word is terminal. Which means the Texas tax
payers will no longer pay to keep a person alive for a indefinite
period. One of the few decent things he has done.
You don't make a law that makes that decision for you. It's not
decent.
Stopping the waste of time and money is the decent thing to do.
I pulled the plug on my father and brother when it was apparent that
they were hopeless. And have advanced DNR papers on file with my
Doctor. Keeping a person that is terminal on life support is cruel to
the person and his family.
But *you* made the choice.
This law looks like a dangerous thing.
atheist@home#1554
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home#1554" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
16 Jan 2007 08:39:39 PM |
|
|
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
He didn't make it law "to kill infants."
As for the other from just what I've read there does seem to be a
problem there.
I haven't actually read the law however so I'll reserve judgement.
And Hussein tortured children in the presence of their parents and his
professional monsters raped little girls and boys, also in the presence
of their parents.
And they tortured parents in the presence of their children.
Bush stopped that.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
17 Jan 2007 12:38:11 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2007 18:39:39 -0800, "atheist@home#1554"
<rdavis2@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
He didn't make it law "to kill infants."
As for the other from just what I've read there does seem to be a
problem there.
I haven't actually read the law however so I'll reserve judgement.
And Hussein tortured children in the presence of their parents and his
professional monsters raped little girls and boys, also in the presence
of their parents.
And they tortured parents in the presence of their children.
Bush stopped that.
Nope it's still happening. And in some cases it American solider's
doing the evil. Along with the Iraq that we are supporting.
atheist@home#1554
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home#1554" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
18 Jan 2007 06:56:42 PM |
|
|
Robert wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 18:39:39 -0800, "atheist@home#1554"
<rdavis2@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
He didn't make it law "to kill infants."
As for the other from just what I've read there does seem to be a
problem there.
I haven't actually read the law however so I'll reserve judgement.
And Hussein tortured children in the presence of their parents and his
professional monsters raped little girls and boys, also in the presence
of their parents.
And they tortured parents in the presence of their children.
Bush stopped that.
Nope it's still happening. And in some cases it American solider's
doing the evil. Along with the Iraq that we are supporting.
There are some bad guys in the American military but they are few and
far between.
For the most part the soldiers from whatever country in the coalition
are decent and honorable people.
atheist@home#1554
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
20 Jan 2007 12:28:34 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2007 16:56:42 -0800, "atheist@home#1554"
<atheist1554@volcanomail.com> wrote:
Robert wrote:
On 16 Jan 2007 18:39:39 -0800, "atheist@home#1554"
<rdavis2@midsouth.rr.com> wrote:
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
He didn't make it law "to kill infants."
As for the other from just what I've read there does seem to be a
problem there.
I haven't actually read the law however so I'll reserve judgement.
And Hussein tortured children in the presence of their parents and his
professional monsters raped little girls and boys, also in the presence
of their parents.
And they tortured parents in the presence of their children.
Bush stopped that.
Nope it's still happening. And in some cases it American solider's
doing the evil. Along with the Iraq that we are supporting.
There are some bad guys in the American military but they are few and
far between.
For the most part the soldiers from whatever country in the coalition
are decent and honorable people.
I agree and some of the bad one are where they belong. With others
hopefully soon to follow.
atheist@home#1554
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
15 Jan 2007 12:09:23 PM |
|
|
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
He shows much of the detachment of Marie Antoinette. He's not
evil so much as out of touch.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
15 Jan 2007 11:40:24 PM |
|
|
Father Haskell <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
He shows much of the detachment of Marie Antoinette. He's not
evil so much as out of touch.
He's an arrogant nutcase who will do anything in order to prove that
he's right. If that means killing another 100,000 people then you'd
better make sure than you're not in the line of fire.
Not unlike that other Texan, Johnson.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
15 Jan 2007 03:30:54 PM |
|
|
In article <1168884563.208450.61820@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
He shows much of the detachment of Marie Antoinette. He's not
evil so much as out of touch.
he's evil. very, very evil. hasn't it occurred to you that the
insurance and pharmaceutical companies asked him to push the
legislation to let all those kids die?
have you noticed that many of the same people who want to protect a
fetus, or zygote, at the expense of the pregnant woman, don't care at
all about the killing of live babies?
--
"His claim of 17 reposts was pure fabrication, changing
the 17 to a 1 made him look more honest than he actually is."
-ray fischer explaining why he forged <rayD07MyG...@netcom.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
15 Jan 2007 07:49:45 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <1168884563.208450.61820@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Father Haskell" <fatherhaskell@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sylvia R. Dickinson wrote:
atheist@home.com wrote:
This is just silly:
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care."
Made it the law to kill infants?
He made impediments to certain healthcare programs so that young, poor
to low-income terminal patients are cut from life-preserving health
care. IOW: if you don't have the money - you die. And the buck didn't
stop there. So it isn't just Iraq's kids that are suffering by the
hands of this monster.
He shows much of the detachment of Marie Antoinette. He's not
evil so much as out of touch.
he's evil. very, very evil.
Okay, okay. He's the second coming of Caesar Nero. I have
no idea what came over me.
hasn't it occurred to you that the
insurance and pharmaceutical companies asked him to push the
legislation to let all those kids die?
Why would that not surprise me.
have you noticed that many of the same people who want to protect a
fetus, or zygote, at the expense of the pregnant woman, don't care at
all about the killing of live babies?
Or turning teenagers into cannon fodder.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
12 Jan 2007 11:10:04 PM |
|
|
In news:45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com,
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> typed:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today,
controversial Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats
his notorious stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked,
"Would you kill a disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that
was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is
the logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they
support a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his
point, Singer said, "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 foetus and the
newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is
the proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other
than himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other
person's individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
Interesting statement.
Do you have a link I could refer to?
--
Wentzky's Wonderful Websearch
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=018436860231047624162%3Axnlyf_8tuni
http://www.shadowshopper.com/index.cfm?adid=10212
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-GoodEnergy
http://goodenergyzdmbo.blogspot.com
http://bloggfordollars.blogspot.com
http://johndwentzky.infinitehosting.net
http://johndwentzky.hostme3.com
Copyright İ John D. Wentzky
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
13 Jan 2007 05:42:32 AM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky wrote:
In news:45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com,
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> typed:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today,
controversial Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats
his notorious stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked,
"Would you kill a disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that
was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is
the logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they
support a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his
point, Singer said, "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 foetus and the
newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is
the proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other
than himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other
person's individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
Interesting statement.
Do you have a link I could refer to?
I believe it's called the Texas Futile Care Law.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Texas+Futile+Care+Law%22
And it kills more than babies. Probably saves the hospital a ton of
money though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Price" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
13 Jan 2007 09:57:38 PM |
|
|
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
John D.Wentzky wrote:
In news:45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com,
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> typed:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today,
controversial Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats
his notorious stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked,
"Would you kill a disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that
was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is
the logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they
support a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his
point, Singer said, "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 foetus and the
newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, Singer rejects that man was
created in the image and likeness of God.
But, he, and he alone, should be subject to his words, since he is
the proponent of them.
He should be given no authority whatsoever to treat persons other
than himself in this manner.
I would agree with him as his statement pertains to himself.
But, I disagree with his statement being used to usurp any other
person's individual autonomy with regard to their own life/body.
In my opinion, Mr. Singer's stance is quite idiotic.
In Texas, Bush made it the law to kill infants if it is too expensive
for the state to to pay their health care.
Interesting statement.
Do you have a link I could refer to?
I believe it's called the Texas Futile Care Law.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Texas+Futile+Care+Law%22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Futile_Care_Law
"Controversy over these provisions mainly centers on Section 166.046,
Subsection (e),[1] which allows a health care facility to discontinue
life-sustaining treatment against the wishes of the patient or guardian
ten days after giving written notice. "
So it doesn't allow anybody to kill anybody, merely to discontinue
care.
"If the ethics consultation process fails to resolve the dispute, the
hospital, working with the family, must try to arrange transfer to
another provider physician and institution who are willing to give the
treatment requested by the family and refused by the current treatment
team.
If after 10 days, no such provider can be found, the hospital and
physician may unilaterally withhold or withdraw the therapy that has
been determined to be futile.
The party who disagrees may appeal to the relevant state court and ask
the judge to grant an extension of time before treatment is withdrawn.
This extension is to be granted only if the judge determines that there
is a reasonable likelihood of finding a willing provider of the
disputed treatment if more time is granted.
If either the family does not seek an extension or the judge fails to
grant one, futile treatment may be unilaterally withdrawn by the
treatment team with immunity from civil or criminal prosecution."
So it doesn't prevent the family getting the care to the patient.
All it does is prevent people from
getting care nobody will pay for, which is inevitable in a capitalist
country.
And it kills more than babies. Probably saves the hospital a ton of
money though.
Probably, but not as much as they'd save if they simply didn't buy
the machines that kept people
alive. Where would we be if that were the financially rewarded
decision?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: I Would Kill Disabled Infants, Says Atheist Professor Singer |
14 Jan 2007 05:37:00 AM |
|
|
Michael Price wrote:
Chris H. Fleming wrote:
John D.Wentzky wrote:
In news:45d14f15.357522718@news-west.newscene.com,
Kate <cobalt@newscene.com> typed:
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 20:47:52 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
In news:1168649742.218314.143560@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Sound of Trumpet <sound_of_trumpet@myway.com> typed:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091204.html
Tuesday September 12, 2006
Princeton Professor Singer: And I repeat, I would kill Disabled
Infants
He is consistent. States "there is no sharp distinction between the
foetus and the newborn baby"
By John-Henry Westen
PRINCETON, September 12, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In a question and
answer article published in the UK's Independent today,
controversial Princeton University Professor Peter Singer repeats
his notorious stand on the killing of disabled newborns. Asked,
"Would you kill a disabled baby?", Singer responded, "Yes, if that
was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole."
People who oppose Singer's position have maintained that Singer is
the logical extension of the culture of death and that society will
eventually embrace his stance if there is no shift to the culture of
life. Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia
Prevention Coalition commented to LifeSiteNews.com about Singer
saying, "at least he's consistent."
In fact, Singer himself uses the abortion debate to justify his
murderous stance.
"Many people find this shocking," continued Singer, "yet they
support a woman's right to have an abortion." Concluding his
point, Singer said, "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 foetus and the
newborn baby."
Singer's position, similar to the culture of death, is that there is
no inherent dignity in man, there is no sanctity of human life. Man
deserves no special treatment since, | | | | | | |
