Act Acting » Method Acting » Cal Thomas: On Life and Killing
Cal Thomas: On Life and Killing
Question:
>Papa Jack commented: >That only shows what low standards you have. If Ray passes your >"smell test," then anyone must.
I used to wonder how PJ found "playmates" for himself. Now I know! He sniffs people to see if they smell right!!
Response:
Papa Jackass <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >leftco…@my-dejanews.com wrote: >> "Ronald D Burke" <RON…@prodigy.net> wrote: >>>>> I believe Leftcoast was trying to give our readers an almost >>>>> perfect example of an ad hominem insult. Notice how he: >>>> Notice that Jackass is criticizing leftcoast for using an >>>> ad hominem attack while using an ad hominem attack. >Notice how Ray continues his blatantly dishonest habit of deleting >the very items he criticizes. It is much easier for Ray to palm >off his lies if he deletes what the opponent said BEFORE he comments >about the deleted materials.
Are you insane, Jackass? >>> Ray, you are much to dirty to be judging anyones cleanliness. >> Oh, I think Ray would pass my test.:) >That only shows what low standards you have. If Ray passes your >"smell test," then anyone must.
Except for you, Jackass. I’ve never resorted to the sorts of smelly insults that you’re known for. — Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious r…@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Louis Brandeis
Response:
In article <35C475F9.29B4…@geocities.com>, Papa Jack – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: > leftco…@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > In article <6pc67j$gu6…@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, > > "Ronald D Burke" <RON…@prodigy.net> wrote: > >> Ray Fischer wrote in message … > >>> Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: > ===================================================================== > >>>> Papa Jack commented: > >>>> I believe Leftcoast was trying to give our readers an almost > >>>> perfect example of an ad hominem insult. Notice how he: > ===================================================================== > >>> Ray Fischer wrote: > >>> Notice that Jackass is criticizing leftcoast for using an > >>> ad hominem attack while using an ad hominem attack. > ===================================================================== > Papa Jack commented: > Notice how Ray continues his blatantly dishonest habit of deleting > the very items he criticizes. It is much easier for Ray to palm > off his lies if he deletes what the opponent said BEFORE he comments > about the deleted materials.
Perhaps you could tell the same thing to that woman, Robyn. She dishonestly deletes hundreds of lines of carefully researched cites and claims they never existed. [...] — Remove ‘funky’ to mail me. ‘Caution: cape does not enable wearer to fly.’ -actual Batman costume tag
Response:
In article <6pc67j$gu6…@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, "Ronald D Burke" <RON…@prodigy.net> wrote: > Ray Fischer wrote in message … > >Papa Jackass <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: > >>I believe Leftcoast was trying to give our readers an almost > >>perfect example of an ad hominem insult. Notice how he: > >Notice that Jackass is criticizing leftcoast for using an ad hominem > >attack while using an ad hominem attack.
Notice, also, how he is misgenderizing me…. hmm. > Ray, you are much to dirty to be judging anyones cleanliness.
Oh, I think Ray would pass my test.:) — "This is not a man who is leaving with his head between his legs." -Dan Quayle on Sununu’s ouster —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Response:
leftco…@my-dejanews.com wrote: > In article <6pc67j$gu6…@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>, > "Ronald D Burke" <RON…@prodigy.net> wrote: >> Ray Fischer wrote in message … >>> Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote:
===================================================================== >>>> Papa Jack commented: >>>> I believe Leftcoast was trying to give our readers an almost >>>> perfect example of an ad hominem insult. Notice how he:
===================================================================== >>> Ray Fischer wrote: >>> Notice that Jackass is criticizing leftcoast for using an >>> ad hominem attack while using an ad hominem attack.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Notice how Ray continues his blatantly dishonest habit of deleting the very items he criticizes. It is much easier for Ray to palm off his lies if he deletes what the opponent said BEFORE he comments about the deleted materials. ===================================================================== > Leftcoast wrote: > Notice, also, how he is misgenderizing me…. hmm.
===================================================================== Papa Jack laughed: That’s easy to do with lefties from the West Coast. I’m sorry, the devil made me write it! #8^) Seriously, this is the first time I read anything that indicated your gender. Of course, I don’t even try to read everything you post. ===================================================================== >> Ronald D Burke wrote: >> Ray, you are much to dirty to be judging anyones cleanliness.
===================================================================== > Leftcoast wrote: > Oh, I think Ray would pass my test.:)
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: That only shows what low standards you have. If Ray passes your "smell test," then anyone must. Enjoy a great weekend. — { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Ray Fischer wrote in message … >Papa Jackass <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >>I believe Leftcoast was trying to give our readers an almost >>perfect example of an ad hominem insult. Notice how he: >Notice that Jackass is criticizing leftcoast for using an ad hominem >attack while using an ad hominem attack. >Sleaze is only acceptable for Jackass – never for anyone else. >> Distracts attention away from any discussion of abortion. >> Attacks the person rather than the idea under discussion. >> Uses a overly generalized attack to smear Cal Thomas >> without any use of facts or specifics. By stating >> Mr. Thomas is "PRO-WAR," Leftcoast believes that will >> automatically create a negative image. >>It is crass propaganda. >Even when you do it, Jackass.
Ray, you are much to dirty to be judging anyones cleanliness. Ron
Response:
RMP101st3 wrote: >>From: leftco…@my-dejanews.com >>Date: 7/16/98 5:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time
===================================================================== >> Leftcoast wrote: >> …. ah,yes. Good old pro-war Cal Thomas. He surely hates >> killing — ‘cept when it’s a kid in a foreign uniform.
===================================================================== > RMP101st3 wrote: > What’s your point "leftcoast"? > How do you get from killing unborn children to fighting a war? > Explain your reach here…
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: I believe Leftcoast was trying to give our readers an almost perfect example of an ad hominem insult. Notice how he: Distracts attention away from any discussion of abortion. Attacks the person rather than the idea under discussion. Uses a overly generalized attack to smear Cal Thomas without any use of facts or specifics. By stating Mr. Thomas is "PRO-WAR," Leftcoast believes that will automatically create a negative image. It is crass propaganda. Enjoy a grand week. — { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Papa Jackass <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >I believe Leftcoast was trying to give our readers an almost >perfect example of an ad hominem insult. Notice how he:
Notice that Jackass is criticizing leftcoast for using an ad hominem attack while using an ad hominem attack. Sleaze is only acceptable for Jackass – never for anyone else. > Distracts attention away from any discussion of abortion. > Attacks the person rather than the idea under discussion. > Uses a overly generalized attack to smear Cal Thomas > without any use of facts or specifics. By stating > Mr. Thomas is "PRO-WAR," Leftcoast believes that will > automatically create a negative image. >It is crass propaganda.
Even when you do it, Jackass. — Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious r…@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Louis Brandeis
Response:
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Bruce Forest wrote: > In article <1998071719581500.PAA05…@ladder03.news.aol.com>, > rmp101…@aol.com (RMP101st3) wrote: > [...]
===================================================================== >> Rmp101st3 wrote: >> You proabortionists are not dealing with a "tiny minority >> of nutters". You are dealing with a groundswell of majority >> opinion- from thoughtful and educated people, rich and poor, >> men and women, and KIDS.
===================================================================== > Bruce Forest wrote: > Bollocks. 9 out of 10 Americans approve of abortion for health > indications. 8 out of 10 support abortion for the chance of fetal > defect. Fewer than 12% want all abortion criminalized. (CBS/NY > Times poll, 1/98)
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Bruce, this is totally dishonest portrayal of the NY Times/CBS poll results — and you know it. The fact that comes through loud and clear is that Americans want greater limits placed on abortion. You claim that 9 out of 10 Americans approve of abortion for health indications. Now let’s look at the actual question: Do you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if the woman’s own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy? 88% – Yes 7% – No 4% – Don’t Know/No Answer Notice that the question asks about abortion in cases where the pregnant woman’s "own health is SERIOUSLY ENDANGERED." Bruce would like to substitute his "health indications" statements so he could use the Doe v. Bolton wording to allow abortionists to justify abortions to cure a hangnail. …the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors – physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age – relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment. ==================================================================== Overall excerpts of the actual poll results follow: 1. Abortion should: 32% – be generally available 45% – be available, but with stricter limits 22% – not be permitted ++++++++++++++ COMPARISON OF 11/89 AND 01/98 11/89 01/98 —– —– 41% 32% – should be generally available 42% 45% – be available, but with stricter limits 15% 22% – should not be permitted ++++++++++++++ Added questions: a. There have been many proposals made over the years to regulate abortion. Would you favor or oppose requiring a test to make sure that the fetus is not developed enough to live outside the womb before a woman could have an abortion? 56% – Favor 31% – Oppose 3% – Depends 10% – No answer b. Would you favor or oppose requiring a 24-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion before the abortion could take place? 79% – Favor 16% – Oppose 1% – Depends 4% – No Answer c. Would you favor or oppose requiring parental consent before a girl under 18 years of age could have an abortion? 78% – Favor 17% – Oppose 2% – Depends 3% – No Answer d. Would you favor or oppose an amendment to the Consti- tution which would make all abortions illegal? 22% – Favor 76% – Oppose 0% – Depends 2% – No Answer ########################################################### 2. Should a woman be permitted or forbidden to have an abortion during: 61% – first three months of pregnancy 15% – second three months of pregnancy 7% – third three months of pregnancy ########################################################### 3. Is abortion the same thing as murdering a child, or is abortion not murder because the fetus really isn’t a child? 50% – murder 38% – not murder 12% – unsure/no reply +++++++++++ Asked of those responding "murder": Do you agree or disagree that abortion is sometimes the best course in a bad situation? 32% – sometimes the best course 60% – not the best course in a bad situation ########################################################### 4. Is abortion more of an issue involving a woman’s ability to control her body or an issue involving the life of a fetus? 45% – Life of the fetus 44% – Woman’s control of her own body 4% – Both 1% – Neither 6% – No answer ########################################################### 5. Do you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if there is a strong chance of serious defects in the baby? 75% – Yes 18% – No 7% – Don’t know/no answer ########################################################### 6. Do you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if she is married and does not want any more children? 39% – Yes 55% – No 6% – Don’t Know/No Answer ########################################################### 7. Do you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if the woman’s own health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy? 88% – Yes 7% – No 4% – Don’t Know/No Answer ########################################################### 8. Do you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if the family has a very low income and cannot affort any more children? 43% – Yes 54% – No 4% – Don’t Know/No Answer ############################# — { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Papa Jackass <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: >On July 14, 1998, the Jewish World Review carried an article >by Cal Thomas titled: "Who cares about killing when the >’good times’ are rolling?" Go to:
Cal Thomas is a right-wing extremist who’s not above stretching the truth in order to promote his agenda. > ===================================================================== > Amy Grossberg and Brian Peterson are going to jail for kil- > ling their newborn baby boy 16 months ago. But they won’t be > there long. Good behavior could reduce their light sentences > in a Delaware prison to less than two years each.
Obviously they should have been executed. After all, they killed a person just like someone who abushes and kills three police officers. And since they commit the same crime, they should receive the same punishment. Right? > During the sentencing, Judge Henry duPont Ridgley spoke of > "the intrinsic value of the life of the child." The judge is > behind the times. A child’s "intrinsic value" was voided 25 > years ago by the Supreme Court.
An outright lie. > Today’s children, unborn and > increasingly born, have only that value which society and > the courts assign them.
Well duh! That’s true of everyone, and always has been the case! > The Grossberg-Peterson case is one of three related stories > that compete for our attention in the din of less-important > "presidential scandals."
Would the Catholic church losing a $23,000,000 judgment because yet another priest molested boys be one of the other related stories? > " A Phoenix abortionist, attempting > an abortion on what he claims he thought was a "23-week-old > fetus," delivered a full-term baby. The 6-pound, 2-ounce girl > suffered a fractured skull and cuts on her face. She was taken > to a hospital. A Texas couple reportedly plans to adopt her.
He wasn’t attempting an abortion. He started an abortion, found out that the fetus was nearly full-term, and performed a delivery instead. But that version isn’t sufficiently slanted for Thomas. — Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious r…@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding. – Louis Brandeis
Response:
In article <35AC9F82.922C4…@geocities.com>, Papa Jack <papa_j…@geocities.com> wrote: > Papa Jack commented: > On July 14, 1998, the Jewish World Review carried an article > by Cal Thomas titled: "Who cares about killing when the > ‘good times’ are rolling?" Go to:
…. ah,yes. Good old pro-war Cal Thomas. He surely hates killing — ‘cept when it’s a kid in a foreign uniform. — "This is not a man who is leaving with his head between his legs." -Dan Quayle on Sununu’s ouster —–== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==—– http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Response:
Alfred W Brazie wrote:
===================================================================== >> Papa Jack quoted Cal Thomas column: >> Amy Grossberg and Brian Peterson are going to jail for kil- >> ling their newborn baby boy 16 months ago. But they won’t be >> there long. Good behavior could reduce their light sentences >> in a Delaware prison to less than two years each. >> During the sentencing, Judge Henry duPont Ridgley spoke of >> "the intrinsic value of the life of the child." The judge is >> behind the times. A child’s "intrinsic value" was voided 25 >> years ago by the Supreme Court. Today’s children, unborn and >> increasingly born, have only that value which society and >> the courts assign them.
===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > Your wrong again Papa! :)
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Nope. I am quoting Cal Thomas’ column. However, as usual, I do agree with Cal Thomas. If you are going to delete parts of what I post, please use some method of showing where deletions were used (i.e., [...], [snip], [dele], etc.). Otherwise it will appear that you quoted the materials out of context for dishonest reasons. ===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > A child’s intrinsic value, if such a thing exists, has not > changed a bit.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Is that logical? First you question whether or not such a thing exists, but then you assure the reader that this "nonexistent" value has not changed a bit. Come on — commit yourself — does a child have an intrinsic value like the judge stated? ===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > Society, in fact, does value children more than ever before. > We show this change in NOT just routinely reproducing children > when we are unable to properly nurture them.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Actually, we reproduce (at least partially) more than ever before. However, what you are trying to express is that we kill one in four during gestation. We have slaughtered more than 30,000,000 since Roe v. Wade. A substantial percentage of the women who abort their children do it because of reasons which have nothing to do with the capability to properly nurture them. The reasons normally given are often simply convenience. All too many are simply selfish and don’t want to be bothered. So, they kill. The National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse collects child abuse statistics. Go to: http://www.childabuse.org/facts97.html Excerpts: ….Child abuse reporting levels have increased 41% between 1988 and 1997. Experts attribute much of the increase in reporting to greater public awareness of and willingness to report child maltreatment, as well as changes in how states collected reports of maltreatment (Wang & Daro, 1998). In 1997, 1,054,000 children were confirmed by CPS as victims of child maltreatment. This represents 15 out of every 1,000 U.S. children. [snip] Since 1985, the rate of child abuse fatalities has increased by 34% (Wang & Daro, 1998). Changes in reporting techniques may account for a portion of the sharp increases in child abuse cases in the last 10 years. However, child abuse FATALITIES should not be significantly impacted by public awareness and statistical techniques. It is clear the millions of unborn children killed in abortions did nothing to improve the abusive conditions in millions of homes. ===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > Abortion is our way of demonstrating that we do value children.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: I love it when PARs write really dumb stuff like this. How would YOU react, Alfred, if I told you I wanted to prove HOW MUCH I VALUED YOU BY KILLING YOU? Would you thank me for being so humane? Now take a deep breath, Al, and remind yourself what abortion really is — the killing of living, innocent, unborn children. Why do you want to force your misguided moral values of all these unborn human beings? BTW, if we really value children, why are child abuse rates so high? ===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > Children are of little value in a society which reproduces > it’s kind with little or no regard for the well being of > those children.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood founder) recommended that we require a "Baby license." Is that what you have in mind? Perhaps the Chinese would like to share their experiences with us on how to force women to have abortions and to limit the number of children to one (1) in urban areas and two (2) in rural areas. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? ===================================================================== >> Papa Jack quotes Cal Thomas: >> What do these three seemingly unrelated cases have in >> common? While the stock market continues ever-higher >> and we obsess over our material well-being, the "intrinsic >> value” of life is in the moral equivalent of a depression.
===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > What is this "intrinsic" value you keep talking about?
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Well, let’s look at the Merriam Webster on-line dictionary: Main Entry: INTRINSIC Function: adjective 1 a : belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic worth of a gem>… Main Entry: VALUE Function: transitive verb 1 a : to estimate or assign the monetary worth of : APPRAISE <value a necklace> b : to rate or scale in usefulness, importance, or general worth : EVALUATE 2 : to consider or rate highly : PRIZE, ESTEEM <values your opinion>… Our Founding Fathers believed every human being had certain natural rights. In _Rights of Man, Thomas Paine wrote, in part: …We have now to consider the civil rights of man, and and to shew how the one originates out of the other. Man did not enter into society to become worse than he was before, nor to have rights than he had before, but to have those rights better secured. His natural rights are the foundation of all his civil rights…. …Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence. Of this kind are all the intellectual rights, or rights of the mind, and also all those rights of acting as an individual for his own comfort and happiness, which are not injurious to the natural rights of others…. We also learn from Thomas Jefferson: "Man [is] a rational animal, endowed by nature with rights and with an innate sense of justice." –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. "A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." — Rights of British America, 1774. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." — Declaration of Independence. ===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > What is this "intrinsic" value you keep talking about? No > one, no thing, has any value which man does not allow it….
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Dictators and tyrants may be able to repress people’s natural rights, but the natural rights continue to exist and they will eventually destabilize the tyrannical rule. ===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > …Man has always "obssesed" over his material well being. > Why do you think we are any different in that respect than > at any other point in history?
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: I personally believe the ME, ME, ME, ME, ME generation is one of the most selfish and self-centered in the history of mankind. ===================================================================== >> Papa Jack quotes Cal Thomas: >> Stories like these, which were once exceptions,…
===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > Certainly the "stories" were exceptions. 
The media has > never before in the history of man be so able in rabble rousing. > There are good bucks in sensationalizing events.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: ===================================================================== >> Papa Jack quotes Cal Thomas: >> …now rapidly multiply because a new generation of >> Americans believes life is cheap and that personal >> peace and affluence are generation of Americans >> believes that life is cheap and that personal peace >> and affluence are supreme.
===================================================================== > Alfred W Brazie wrote: > Show me some real cause and effects! You are making > unsupportable *claims*.
===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: Hey, I’m quoting a newspaper column. If you want documentation, you will have to … read more »
Response:
Papa Jack commented: On July 14, 1998, the Jewish World Review carried an article by Cal Thomas titled: "Who cares about killing when the ‘good times’ are rolling?" Go to: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/thomas.html ===================================================================== Amy Grossberg and Brian Peterson are going to jail for kil- ling their newborn baby boy 16 months ago. But they won’t be there long. Good behavior could reduce their light sentences in a Delaware prison to less than two years each. During the sentencing, Judge Henry duPont Ridgley spoke of "the intrinsic value of the life of the child." The judge is behind the times. A child’s "intrinsic value" was voided 25 years ago by the Supreme Court. Today’s children, unborn and increasingly born, have only that value which society and the courts assign them. The Grossberg-Peterson case is one of three related stories that compete for our attention in the din of less-important "presidential scandals." A Phoenix abortionist, attempting an abortion on what he claims he thought was a "23-week-old fetus," delivered a full-term baby. The 6-pound, 2-ounce girl suffered a fractured skull and cuts on her face. She was taken to a hospital. A Texas couple reportedly plans to adopt her. The third story is about a federal judge in Brooklyn who sentenced a man to 21 years in prison for inciting a crowd seven years ago during four nights of violence between black and Jewish residents. That action culminated in the stabbing death of a Hasidic scholar, Yankel Rosenbaum. Another man convicted of the actual stabbing of Rosen- baum was given a slightly lesser sentence of 19-and-a- half years in prison. What do these three seemingly unrelated cases have in common? While the stock market continues ever-higher and we obsess over our material well-being, the "intrinsic value” of life is in the moral equivalent of a depression. Why are we surprised when two young people, who never lived at a time when human life enjoyed more protection, act out what society, law and medicine have taught them? Had the Phoenix doctor killed that little girl in her mother’s womb as he had intended, the "procedure” would not have made the papers. But what difference is there in the baby’s status seconds before she emerges from the womb and seconds after she has emerged except that which society assigns to her? In New York, a man gets more jail time for inciting another to violence than the one who does the deed, yet both get nearly ten times the jail time as Grossberg and Peterson and 100 percent more jail time than an abortion- ist who "made a mistake” by failing to kill baby, but daily kills many others. Why be shocked when another young woman leaves her school prom to deliver a baby in the restroom, sees it drown in the toilet and returns for the next dance as if emptying her womb and emptying her bladder are morally equivalent? Stories like these, which were once exceptions, now rapidly multiply because a new generation of Americans believes that life is cheap and that personal peace and affluence are supreme. Now that one of the world’s leading eugenicists has been hired by the once-noble Princeton University, look for new academic and intellectual rationale for more extreme attacks on human rights. Dr. Peter Singer is Princeton’s new Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values. Singer, an Australian, has been influential in the field of applied ethics for the last 25 years. As reported in The New York Times Magazine, Singer favors killing disabled babies because he thinks they have no right to live. Even "normal" babies would not be granted protection until one month after birth. Apparently a baby is to be regarded as merchandise which one can "return” after a 30-day "trial.” The differ- ence is that to return what we generally consider merchan- dise, it must be in good condition. After the trial period, an unwanted baby would be killed. Singer sees the future as one in which babies and infants are declared nonpersons because they are not "rational and self-aware.” According to him, even a baby with a condition as mild as hemophilia can be killed if such a death has "no adverse effects on others.” Besides, he believes, all such "non-persons” are "replaceable," much like chickens and other farm-yard animals, an analogy which he uses. He believes in ending anyone’s life when it is "not worth living," and in the involuntary killing of anyone who has become a "burden" to their families, the health care system or the state. This is where things are headed if we don’t cry "stop." But who would hear? The "good times" are rolling. ===================================================================== Papa Jack commented: I would like to solicit comments on Dr. Peter Singer’s views on killing newborn babies. Enjoy a great week. — { Papa Jack { { http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/ "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." –Thomas Jefferson
Response:
Related Posts
- Rights of Priests at Issue in Probes
- More Anti-ITU Drivel (don't read if you're sick of this)
- Protection against lightning?
- Stabilizer trim question
- Dog Problem, what can we do
- Mathew Sheppard is not a Hero.
- ? about servitors
- Noni herb.
- This got lost Ruby, it's for u.
- How to catch Carp?