Peter Singer is a calm, lucid and able debater, and our debate at Biola University in Los Angeles on April 25 was lively and hard-fought. Not for nothing is Singer considered a world-class philosopher and advocate. You can watch the debate here.
Singer praised me for not simply making assertions of faith or hurling Bible passages at him but rather for using reason and argument to make my case . And I complimented Singer for stepping, so to speak, into the lion's den. (Biola actually stands for Bible Institute of Los Angeles.) Unlike the pusillanimous Richard Dawkins, who doesn't dare to debate me even at his home campus of Oxford, Singer was brave to come to a Christian campus to dispute the resolution "God: Yes or No." The audience of 3,000 was mostly though not exclusively Christian.
So perhaps atheism has found an able advocate. But unbelievers may want to think twice before lining up behind Singer, who argues in favor of infanticide, euthanasia and (this is not a joke) animal rights! One of Singer's interesting proposals concerns what may be called "fourth trimester" abortions, i.e. the right to kill one's offspring even after birth!
Here are some choice Singer quotations on the subject which I get from his books Rethinking Life and Death and Writings on an Ethical Life.
On how mothers should be permitted to kill their offspring until the age of 28 days: "My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others."
On why abortion is less morally significant than killing a rat: "Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at ten or even thirty-two weeks gestation."
On why pigs, chickens and fish have more rights to life than unborn humans: "The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy, while if we make the comparison with a fetus of less than three months, a fish would show more signs of consciousness."
On why infants aren't normal human beings with rights to life and liberty: "Characteristics like rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness...make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings."
In my opening statement I showed the profound connection between Singer's Darwinian atheism and his advocacy of infanticide and euthanasia. Remarkably Singer responded by saying he didn't come to debate his bioethical views! Rather, he wanted the debate to focus exclusively on the question of whether God exists or not. I didn't want this to be a debate in which Singer and I ended up talking on completely different subjects, so I engaged him on his chosen ground.
Even so, I was disappointed that Singer wouldn't stand up for the opinions that have made him famous, or infamous. Our topic resolution was broad enough to permit a discussion both of the existence of God and also of the social implications of the theist and the atheist positions. I view Singer's work as exploring the consequences of living in a truly secular society, devoid not only of the Christian God but also of Christian morality.
So while Christianity introduced into Western civilization the concept of dignity of human life, Singer explicitly says we have to get rid of this outdated concept. He contends that God is dead and we should recognize ourselves as Darwinian primates who enjoy no special status compared to the other animals. In the animal kingdom, after all, parents sometimes kill and even devour their offpsring. Singer argues that the West can learn from the other cultures like the Kalahari where children are routinely killed when they are unwanted, even when they are several years old.
Some of Singer's critics call him a Nazi and compare his proposals to Hitler's schemes for eliminating the unwanted, the unfit and the disabled. But as I note in the debate, Singer is no Hitler. He doesn't want state-sponsored killings. Rather, he wants the decision to kill to be made by you and me. Instead of government-conducted genocide, Singer favors free-market homicide.
Given the connection that Singer draws between atheism and child murder, using the former as his premise to recommend the latter, I wonder if our atheist friends are going to rush to embrace this guy as one of their heroes. Is Singer showing us where the road to complete secularism actually leads?
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 49)
46. Luring sounds like propagandizing Ben. How does Planned Parenthood lure women into the clinics? And doesn't the front group you represent fanatically picket those clinics?
JefFlyingV at 1:06PM on May 9th 2008
47. ATHEIST
You're confusing an intelligent person who raised legitimate questions about the treatment of children with severe birth defects.... with a person who advocated child murder.
Yes, Dinesh is a poor excuse for a human being. He thinks he has to fight for his beliefs.
But he won't look at his beliefs.
A belief in
Invisible demonic spirits that force people to behave violently and self-destructively
Jesus was an Exorcist and the demons had to obey him.
The entire world was covered by flood waters six thousand years ago... even though no culture records such an event.
Humans were created in their current form with the ability to talk in complete sentences.
That last one.... if you really want to dumb down their children, tell them to accept the idea of humans being "created" as a matter of faith.
Dinesh is fighting for the wrong thing. He seems to be fighting for the right to be stupid... but in reality, he suffers from a poor self image and makes up LIES about his opponents in order to puff himself up.
William Hays at 1:13PM on May 9th 2008
48. Ben,
Planned Parenthood is a Eugenics organization. It is only interested in the slaughter of unborn children. They promote the most immoral and perverted sexual practices. All Federal Funding should be withdrawn immediately! I don’t want my tax dollars given to Planned Parenthood! I refer you to this editorial. God bless you!
Opinion Maggie Gallagher
IS PLANNED PARENTHOOD ABOVE THE LAW?
Wed Apr 23, 10:59 AM ET
Planned Parenthood likes to think of itself as above all reproach -- a champion of women's rights and also (as its annual report claims) the nation's "social justice movement."
But this week, in front of Planned Parenthood offices at 1108 16th St. NW in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, a group of black pastors and pro-life activists (joined by two GOP congressmen) will demand a congressional audit of what the group alleges are a pattern of racist practices, funded by taxpayers, at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.
Planned Parenthood's latest trouble began when a feisty pro-life student magazine called Planned Parenthood offices in seven states, posing as an openly racist donor seeking to make sure his check could be earmarked to abort "a black baby." The resulting phone conversations are horrifying listening. (Judge for yourself at www.youtube.com./watch?v=zwif0VMW3c4.)
According to the group, Planned Parenthood officers in at least four states agreed not only to accept the racists' check, but to actually earmark the donation for that purpose. "The less black kids the better," the caller tells one Planned Parenthood employee. "For whatever reason we'll accept the money," was one typical response.
The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is promising to spend $10 million this election cycle. "These donations come even as Planned Parenthood is defending itself against a range of civil and criminal complaints in several states, and critics charge that the organization is trying to buy influence in Congress," notes ABC News.
It's a smart investment for an affluent organization (a budget surplus of $114 million and assets of more than $1 billion) that gets more than one-third of its income, or almost $337 million in 2006, from the taxpayers.
The current racism charge can't help but revive memories of a similar sting operation that revealed many Planned Parenthood clinic employees were willing to tell a caller posing as a 13-year-old girl with a 22-year-old boyfriend how she could avoid triggering mandatory child sex abuse reporting requirements at the clinic.
In each case, Planned Parenthood's national leaders have responded poorly, seeking to deflect attention away from the behavior of its own employees to the motivations of those who made the phone calls.
Sure, these are pro-life activists doing these sting operations. But here's the real question: What is it about Planned Parenthood employees that makes them so easy for pro-life activists to target? Why do Planned Parenthood officers lack the minimal sense of decency to tell a man who wants to make sure there are fewer black kids in the world where he can go with his money? Or even worse: When faced with a child sexually exploited by a pedophile, why didn't Planned Parenthood employees want to call the police?
I do not believe that Planned Parenthood is explicitly racist (though its founder, Margaret Sanger, certainly was), any more than I believe that Planned Parenthood workers actively want to encourage pedophilia.
But here's what we've learned: Planned Parenthood is an organization staffed by people committed to the proposition that there is never a good reason not to have, support, fund or perform an abortion. In their own minds, their sacred mission to destroy human life puts them above the normal rules and even laws that any minimally decent person (whether pro-choice or pro-life) would recognize.
Help pedophiles and racists? For too many Planned Parenthood employees, it's apparently all in a day's work.
That's a clear product of a corporate culture created by Planned Parenthood, which views the organization as above normal rules and laws.
And the vast right-wing conspiracy cannot possibly do more damage to this organization's reputation than its own leadership does in dismissing the indefensible.
janesophie1 at 1:13PM on May 9th 2008
49. Carol, you poor ignorant wench. You apparently know nothing of christianity. You were told what catholism is, but you have never had the ambition to find out on your own, use the public library in your town.
JefFlyingV at 1:16PM on May 9th 2008
50. Linda, think about what time the Bible was written, first and foremost. Second, the Bible tell us to not kill. Many people look at human fetuses as, well, human, as opposed to a mere cluster of cells.
I'm not trying to be a Bible thumper, because I'm actually not really a Christian, but it's not hard to understand the concept of not agreeing with abortion. I certainly don't.
Misti at 1:18PM on May 9th 2008
51. Carol
I am a convert to Catholicism. I do not worship Mary. I worship Jesus Christ and I am a Christian. I could not allow your misinformation to go unchallenged.
janesophie1 at 1:20PM on May 9th 2008
52. I have read Singer,and i find his comments amusing.I also listened to an interview he did on the radio,and i found his claims riddiculous.
A personal story:When i was born,I was heavily cyanosed,and i could not breathe.Infact,it took 20 mins of resucitation before i tookthe first breath.If i was a doc on the site,I probably would have thought of how demonstrably awful my life would be....damage to me brain,but no one knows tommiorow.Today,I am now a doctor,workin in a third world country,saving lives.Because a doc gave me another chance.
Also,whilst pregnant with me,my mom thought of ending this pregnancy.She was sick most of the time,and at delivery,was pre-eclamptic(she had pre-eclampsia for the birth of me and my two sibs)But she chose to go on.Why.?No one knows tommorow.
Recently,we were managing a baby with a condition known as severe hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy at a hospital where we worked.During a ward discussion,I asked the consultant neonatologist,Why bother.This kid is gonna die anyway,and even if he survives,he would likely be neurologically impaired.My boss' answer,Simply no one knows tommorow.
I believe that every fetus is a person,because as humans,we instinctively want to nurture a weakling to strength.Even if i became an atheist tommorow,i will still believe in personhood for all,especially the disabled infant.
Because,no one knows what that 'clump o' cells' or parasite might be tommorow.
We are persons,because we are.Not because someone else says so.
mad african christian. at 1:24PM on May 9th 2008
53. Dinesh, thanks for blowing the whistle on these perverted "intellectuals."
Killing your own baby up to 28 days old? Are you kidding me? I can't see how anybody can call this guy anything nice. He is a wicked sicko. This is world class evil, no matter how well mannered he presents himself!
A bestselling atheist author writes that perhaps parents teaching their personal religious views to their own children could be child abuse, while in the same book he muses that maybe adults having sex with children might not be so harmful.
Here you can see how twisted and morally depraved atheists become. These are not rare gaffs in judgment, but rather these are considered to be the leading edge of the atheists at large, -- the expected destination of atheism taken to its logical conclusion.
How gullible do the rest of us need to be to give people like this anything but the scorn and contempt they deserve for these types of outrageously hostile suggestions!?
Rev 3:16 at 1:24PM on May 9th 2008
54. Just because Peter Singer is an Atheist and also holds those views on Abortion and Infanticide does NOT mean that the two are connected.
I am an atheist but I would never support killing a born child and I have deep reservations about abortion as well.
To compare the two things as though ALL atheists would feel that way is illogical and disingenous.
Chuck at 1:28PM on May 9th 2008
55. I think they call it "apologetics" because the person doing them is apologizing for the story being so un-believable and childish in nature. That's how I've always taken it, from the very first time I ever saw the word spoken.
It's like another way of saying "I'm sorry I'm a moron, but......"
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:26PM on May 9th 2008
56. What if there was a limit of 1 or 2 (plus a rape grace?) government-backed abortions per woman? Would that help ease the people who say that abortion just enables irresponsible sexual practices?
Mokele Mbembe at 1:27PM on May 9th 2008
57. janesophie1
I know very little about PP. It sounds like a good idea to have planned parenthood, but what the organization is doing I know little. However in today's world there are all kinds of false accusations accompanied by half truths. I will buy into what you are saying if I see criminal charges brought against PP on real grounds. That may have happened in the past, but I am not aware of it. I recall several years ago about our government sterilizing black women on welfare in the south, but that was before PP.
Jerry Brown at 1:31PM on May 9th 2008
58. 34. Brian post 21 - GHB - you never were a DD fan.
Man_in_Wilderness at 12:16PM on May 9th 2008
---------------------------------
Do you assume that every Brian with a capital "B" is me? That's the very REASON that I STARTED using the Godless Heathen thing. I never post as anybody else, unless I reveal that it is me within a few pages. I don't LIKE it when people try to post under new names just to confuse things.
So, basically, what I'm telling you is that IT WASN'T ME.....
I'd NEVER post that I was even a fan in the past. I never was, not for one minute. Couldn't stand DD, right from the get-go.
Godless Heathen Brian at 1:32PM on May 9th 2008
59. Rev,
"How gullible do the rest of us need to be"
I don't know, but you seem gullible enough to me.
m.a.c.
I can see that you're not an idiot, I just have my different views.
"I believe that every fetus is a person"
"We are persons,because we are."
Which brings me to my favorite line: "I'm a PERSON and my name is ANAKIN"
Mokele Mbembe at 1:32PM on May 9th 2008
60. @50 "not hard to understand the concept of not agreeing with abortion. I certainly don't.
Misti at 1:18PM"
Nobody "agrees with" abortion. If you don't like it, don't have one.
But it's not "pro-life" versus "pro-abortion." Nobody is IN FAVOR of abortion. It's not like there are picket signs with "Abortion, YES! Babies NO!!" out there.
It's about the right of a woman to have control of her own body, and to have the freedom to choose to terminate a fetus that is in the early stages of development.
brandon at 1:32PM on May 9th 2008