Professor Peter Singer: Kill infants and those with disabilities

[Deicide]

It is true that you can form new relationships, but they often come at great cost.  I think people who have lost loved ones will tell you that it takes a long time to heal wounds.  That was part of my point.  

Children are different because you have relationships with them from birth.  They're not an investment in my future.  They have nothing to do with increasing my bottom line.  They actually cost me a great deal of money.  I invest in their future.  My close ties to them have to do with the fact that I knew them before they were born, taught them how to eat, walk, talk, etc. and have shared countless memories.  You can't simply discard those relationships.  People who think those kinds of relationships are interchangeable probably haven't experienced those relationships.    

Surely you are brighter than this. Your DNA is housed in your children, thus they are the investment in the future. By providing for them you are ensuring that they grow up and are in a position to copulate and produce DNA themselves, thus furthering your genetic line. If you lost your children now you could copulate with a female again to produce a new line of DNA.

[tonymctones]

Because I've read about how life begins and shared the pregnancy experience with my wife.  I've seen life develop in the womb.

It's the logical starting point for me. 

When do you believe life begins and why?   

what things that you have read that arent religious in nature say that life begins at conception.
How is that logical, please explain
I assume you are against the morning after pill then right?

I dont really know when life begins, I believe life begins at conception but think this way b/c of my religious views and know that they are not based in logic and are arbitrary.

Legally death is when electric activity stops in the brain so i guess if you wanted to pick a good legal starting point then that would be a good place to start.

[Dos Equis]

You are going back in forth, you said that humans are more important than a plant and therefor its ok to step on an acorn but not kill an infant b/c we cam think. If this is the case then following your logic you must also be against killing animals b/c they can think, correct? Apparently you are ok with killing animals so that means that there is another qualyfing aspect that makes it ok to kill animals but not humans. The only thing that this could be would be the amount of cognitive ability that humans have in respect to animals correct? If you use cognitive ability what is the cut off you use to say that below this line its ok to kill and above this line its not ok to kill? Will you be ok with killing those mentally handicapped and elderly that dont pass your line?

So its right b/c the constitution says so? If the constitution said kill them you would support it? Again you need to think about the logic behind it.

What am I going back and forth on?  You are the one who brought the stepping on an acorn example.  I didn't think that example was very good, and still don't.  I simply answered your questions.  This is your issue (plants versus people) not mine.  I don't think there is any comparison at all. 

You asked me for a distinction between people and plants.  I gave you my rationale.  You disagree with my rationale.

Now you brought up animals.  Not me.  And you are trying to contort some relationship between plants, animals, and humans.  It doesn't work Tony. 

Yes, it's right because the Constitution says so and because that part of the Constitution is supported by common sense and logic.  Are you really disputing that people don't have a basic right to live?   

[Dos Equis]

Surely you are brighter than this. Your DNA is housed in your children, thus they are the investment in the future. By providing for them you are ensuring that they grow up and are in a position to copulate and produce DNA themselves, thus furthering your genetic line. If you lost your children now you could copulate with a female again to produce a new line of DNA.

Wrong.  I invest in their future so they can have the best possible chance at having a good life.  My investment in their future has zero to do with furthering my genetic line.  Nonsense. 

I don't share your warped view of life.  You don't just go "copulate" with another female and create new "DNA."  What's wrong with you man?   

[tonymctones]

You asked me for a distinction between people and plants.  I gave you my rationale.  You disagree with my rationale.

Now you brought up animals.  Not me.  And you are trying to contort some relationship between plants, animals, and humans.  It doesn't work Tony. 

Yes, it's right because the Constitution says so and because that part of the Constitution is supported by common sense and logic.  Are you really disputing that people don't have a basic right to live?   

Your rationale makes no logical sense, how do you not see this?
If you use b/c we can think then you cannot logically kill animals which you already said was ok do you not see the problem with your logic?

Im not saying ppl dont have the basic right to life all im saying is you judge this guy on your views but LOGICALLY and ETHICALLY his stance can be defended.

[Dos Equis]

what things that you have read that arent religious in nature say that life begins at conception.
How is that logical, please explain
I assume you are against the morning after pill then right?

I dont really know when life begins, I believe life begins at conception but think this way b/c of my religious views and know that they are not based in logic and are arbitrary.

Legally death is when electric activity stops in the brain so i guess if you wanted to pick a good legal starting point then that would be a good place to start.

My view that life begins at conception has nothing to do with my religious views.  Again, why do you keep bringing up religion? 

Why do you assume I'm against the morning after pill? 

A person is created when the sperm and egg unite.  That's when sex is determined.  That's when the baby starts developing.  I'm not sure what else to tell you.  I could see an argument for saying life begins when the heart starts beating, but that happens a few weeks after conception anyway.  I learned this stuff in biology class many moons ago.  I read this again when I was going through child birth classes with my wife. 

I don't think there is anything I read (religious or secular) that told me life begins at conception.  It's a conclusion I reached on my own for all of the reasons I've given.       

[Dos Equis]

Your rationale makes no logical sense, how do you not see this?
If you use b/c we can think then you cannot logically kill animals which you already said was ok do you not see the problem with your logic?

Im not saying ppl dont have the basic right to life all im saying is you judge this guy on your views but LOGICALLY and ETHICALLY his stance can be defended.

How do I not see what?  Are you talking about my disagreement with your view that stepping on an acorn is no different than killing a baby?  I can't help you with that one.  It really doesn't make any sense, logical or otherwise. 

I never said because "we can think then you cannot logically kill animals."  Where are you getting that from? 

To get back on topic, there is no logical or ethical defense for his belief that we should murder disabled babies.  It's absolutely indefensible.  It's barbaric.  It defies common sense.  It defies the law.  It defies basic human decency.  It's also irresponsible for Princeton to put a man with those views in his position. 

Could you imagine amending the Constitution to say that the government has the right to murder disabled babies?  It's ridiculous.       

[tonymctones]

My view that life begins at conception has nothing to do with my religious views.  Again, why do you keep bringing up religion? 

Why do you assume I'm against the morning after pill? 

A person is created when the sperm and egg unite.  That's when sex is determined.  That's when the baby starts developing.  I'm not sure what else to tell you.  I could see an argument for saying life begins when the heart starts beating, but that happens a few weeks after conception anyway.  I learned this stuff in biology class many moons ago.  I read this again when I was going through child birth classes with my wife. 

I don't think there is anything I read (religious or secular) that told me life begins at conception.  It's a conclusion I reached on my own for all of the reasons I've given.       

Most ppl who believe life begins at conception believe this way b/c of religious influence.
I have no problem with you believing that life begins at conception as long as you know its not based any more in logic than other views of when life begins.
You dont see any arguement for life beginning when electrical activity starts in the brain b/c thats when death technically is determined?

[tonymctones]

How do I not see what?  Are you talking about my disagreement with your view that stepping on an acorn is no different than killing a baby?  I can't help you with that one.  It really doesn't make any sense, logical or otherwise. 

I never said because "we can think then you cannot logically kill animals."  Where are you getting that from? 

To get back on topic, there is no logical or ethical defense for his belief that we should murder disabled babies.  It's absolutely indefensible.  It's barbaric.  It defies common sense.  It defies the law.  It defies basic human decency.  It's also irresponsible for Princeton to put a man with those views in his position. 

Could you imagine amending the Constitution to say that the government has the right to murder disabled babies?  It's ridiculous.       

OMG beach I asked why you thought a human life was more important then a plants life in the instance that its ok for you to go rip out a plant but not kill a human. You said b/c we have the ability to think, however you think its ok to kill animals despite their ability to think. You dont see the problem in logic with this?

You are using false logic to put human life on a pedestal, this pedestal causes you to view this man in an infavorable light although from the standpoint of a person who has no view of right or wrong other than to do whats best for the society his view can be defended. Elderly and infants contribute little if anything to society therefor from his standpoint it is defensable.

[Dos Equis]

Most ppl who believe life begins at conception believe this way b/c of religious influence.
I have no problem with you believing that life begins at conception as long as you know its not based any more in logic than other views of when life begins.
You dont see any arguement for life beginning when electrical activity starts in the brain b/c thats when death technically is determined?

You make a lot of assumptions dude.  What religious influence are you talking about?  The Bible?  I'm unaware of anything in the Bible that talks about life beginning at conception.  But I don't consider this a religious issue anyway . . . even though you keep bringing it up.    You seem to be saying that people who do base conclusions on religious influence are illogical.  I don't agree with that (if that is your point).  

Yes I can see an argument for saying life begins when electrical activity starts in the brain.

[Dos Equis]

OMG beach I asked why you thought a human life was more important then a plants life in the instance that its ok for you to go rip out a plant but not kill a human. You said b/c we have the ability to think, however you think its ok to kill animals despite their ability to think. You dont see the problem in logic with this?

You are using false logic to put human life on a pedestal, this pedestal causes you to view this man in an infavorable light although from the point of view of a person who has no view of right or wrong other than to do whats best for the society his view can be defended. Elderly and infants contribute little if anything to society therefor from a standpoint that has no right or wrongs it is defensable.

Ah . . . no.  That's not what I said.  Here is what I said:

Humans think, feel, and make the world go round.  Plants are dispensable and completely interchangeable.  I can walk outside right now and pull a plant out of the ground with little or no repercussion.  I can also replace it with another plant tomorrow.  If I were to walk outside and shoot a random person, it's possible hundreds of people could be adversely affected.  No comparison Tony.   

It is true that you can form new relationships, but they often come at great cost.  I think people who have lost loved ones will tell you that it takes a long time to heal wounds.  That was part of my point. 

So now we're talking about animals again?  lol . . .  I can't believe I spent so much time distinguishing plants from humans.  lol . . .   

I'm about to sign off, but I understand why you are defending this guy; it's because you agree with him and apparently share the same mindset.  How else could you make a statement like this:  "Elderly and infants contribute little if anything to society."  Not only is your statement false, but it's irrelevant.  Contribution to society is in no way related to the basic right to life, or the basic right not to be murdered.     

[tonymctones]

Ah . . . no.  That's not what I said.  Here is what I said:


So now we're talking about animals again?  lol . . .  I can't believe I spent so much time distinguishing plants from humans.  lol . . .   

I'm about to sign off, but I understand why you are defending this guy; it's because you agree with him and apparently share the same mindset.  How else could you make a statement like this:  "Elderly and infants contribute little if anything to society."  Not only is your statement false, but it's irrelevant.  Contribution to society is in no way related to the basic right to life, or the basic right not to be murdered.     

I dont feel this way, im with you in your stance that its not ok for elderly and infants to be killed but against you in saying this guy is wrong. He isnt its just another way of thinking, and you logically cant say he is wrong.

OMG i really dont see how you dont follow the logical progression humans have a right to life b/c they think, feel, i wont even mention the third one...so do animals but they dont have right to life? You see your using this logic to apply to humans but not to other subjects with the same qualities this makes it illogical. You would have to qualify it more to seperate humans from animals...i recommend you go pick up an ethics text book from a local college and read it b/c your logic is seriously flawed and you dont even see it.

[tonymctones]

maybe i should have asked what makes human life so special that it is wrong to kill another human being? this is what i was trying to get at