For links: information and action, scroll down.
Peter Singer is the Ethics and Philosophy professor at Princeton University. He is also considered the father of “animal rights” while simultaneously proposing that killing dis-abled people is ethical, especially if it makes the majority of people happy. (That is, whatever makes the majority happy, is the moral and ethical choice.) Call it the extreme example of the depravity of the academy, where intellectual acrobatics are rewarded over any ethic that demands the full inclusion of everyone, all people. And don’t get me started on Animal rights, when the animal rights movement has yet to disown this fraud, this mengele the Professor Death.
The hashtag is on!!! Let the tweeting being. Demand:
- That Princeton University officials should immediately call for Professor Singer’s resignation;
- That Princeton University officials should publicly disavow Singer’s statements that both devalue the lives of people with disabilities and advocate public policies that would end those lives through denial of healthcare; and
- That the New Jersey Legislature and Governor Chris Christie publicly denounce the lethal and discriminatory public health care policy advocated by Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer.
Sign the petition : Denounce Lethal Anti-Disability Healthcare Policy Advocated by Peter Singer
“Demonstrators opposed to Princeton’s hiring of Peter Singer, who has written in support of euthanasia for some disabled infants and is the university’s first professor of bioethics, protested his inaugural day of teaching yesterday by chaining themselves to the administration building.
The Princeton police said they arrested 14 people who refused to stop blocking the entrances to Nassau Hall, the administration building. Most of the protesters were in motorized wheelchairs and either locked themselves to the building or linked their chairs with handcuffs. They were charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct and released.
”This protest is more against Princeton than it is against Peter Singer,” said Stephen Drake, an organizer of the rally for Not Dead Yet, a disability rights group. ”The university has chosen to hire this man, to give him a platform.””
PETER SINGER FAQS
In his own words:
“In Animal Liberation I propose asking experimenters who use animals if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on human beings at a similar mental level — say, those born with irreversible brain damage. Experimenters who consider their work justified because of the benefits it brings should declare whether they consider such experiments justifiable. If they do not, they should be asked to explain why they think that benefits to a large number of human beings can outweigh harming animals, but cannot outweigh inflicting similar harm on humans. In my view, this belief is evidence of speciesism.
Even if some individual experiments may be justified, this does not mean that the institutional practice of experimenting on animals is justified.”
“Q. You have been quoted as saying: “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” Is that quote accurate?
A. (Singer): It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person”
Unspeakable Conversations (Should I have been killed at birth? The case for my life.) The New York Times Magazine ^ | 02/16/03 | HARRIET McBRYDE JOHNSON
Whenever I try to wrap my head around his tight string of syllogisms, my brain gets so fried it’s . . . almost fun. Mercy! It’s like ”Alice in Wonderland.”He insists he doesn’t want to kill me. He simply thinks it would have been better, all things considered, to have given my parents the option of killing the baby I once was, and to let other parents kill similar babies as they come along and thereby avoid the suffering that comes with lives like mine and satisfy the reasonable preferences of parents for a different kind of child. It has nothing to do with me. I should not feel threatened.
It is a chilly Monday in late March, just less than a year ago. I am at Princeton University. My host is Prof. Peter Singer, often called — and not just by his book publicist — the most influential philosopher of our time. He is the man who wants me dead. No, that’s not at all fair. He wants to legalize the killing of certain babies who might come to be like me if allowed to live. He also says he believes that it should be lawful under some circumstances to kill, at any age, individuals with cognitive impairments so severe that he doesn’t consider them ”persons.” What does it take to be a person? Awareness of your own existence in time. The capacity to harbor preferences as to the future, including the preference for continuing to live.
“According to an article published Sunday by World Net Daily, a Princeton University professor has suggested that severely disabled infants be killed to cut health care costs and for moral reasons. In a radio interview Sunday with Aaron Klein, broadcast on New York’s AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia’s NewsTalk 990 AM, Princeton University ethics professor Peter Singer argued it is “reasonable” for government or private insurance companies to deny treatment to severely disabled babies.
Several times during the interview Singer argued the health-care system under Obamacare should openly acknowledge health-care rationing and that the country should acknowledge the necessity of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.” Singer also repeatedly referred to a disabled infant as “it” during the interview.”