Peter Singer doesn’t want tax dollars to pay for disabled babies
While pro-life advocates work to remove tax funded abortions, Princeton University bio-ethicist, Peter Singer says he doesn’t want his tax dollars to pay for disabled babies. In a radio interview in April with WorldNet Daily’s Aaron Klein, Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled…
While pro-life advocates work to remove tax funded abortions, Princeton University bio-ethicist, Peter Singer says he doesn’t want his tax dollars to pay for disabled babies.
In a radio interview in April with WorldNet Daily’s Aaron Klein, Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.
Singer is both an advocate for abortion as well as infanticide.
On his faculty page, under the heading: The Sanctity of Human Life, Singer openly argues for infanticide:
Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
“Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection – but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.
The video below is from Life Dynamics’ monthly pro-life show Life Talk TV.
According to WND, asked whether he envisions denying treatment to disabled infants to become more common in the U.S. under the new health-care law, Singer replied: “It does happen. Not necessarily because of costs.”
- If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother, it won’t be able to interact with any other human being, it will just lie there in the bed and you could feed it but that’s all that will happen, doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive.
I don’t know whether they are influenced by reducing costs. Probably they are just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after, and there will be no quality of life for the child.
So we are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants.
And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens
Singer later stated, “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”
Disability Rights groups have called Singer’s views “bigotry” against the disabled and have launched a petition demanding the Princeton University professor resign over his outspoken support for euthanasia and infanticide.
More Articles From Life Dynamics:
Taking A Moment To Remember The Civil Rights Act
July 2, 2018 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Fifty-Four years ago today, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the landmark Civil Rights Act into law. This law guaranteed full and equal enjoyment of services and public accommodations (such as hotels, theaters, parks, restaurants, and other public places) without discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, religion, or…
Dropping Her In The Grease
In the past few months, Planned Parenthood has suddenly begun to distance itself from its founder, Margaret Sanger, to the point that they even removed her name from one of their facilities. The question is why?