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 48 of 49)
706. I don’t worry about contracting an STD or a experiencing a crisis pregnancy. I am able to concentrate on growing spiritually.
-janesophie1 -
This is great for you, you are obviously unique in this world. Unfortunately most women, even those who believe in Jesus are not endowed with your spiritual power. Instead of judging everyone, why not allow them to make their own decisions as to what is best for them?
It is my right to make decisions on what is in my best interest. But to tell others what they should believe and what they should do with their bodies isn't something that I have the right to do, and neither do you.
TJ at 3:48PM on May 13th 2008
707. janesophie1 : You are a man, but maybe I can explain what it feels like to be a woman.
Have you ever had a child? Been pregnant?
They you shouldn't go there. As any mother will tell you, until you have "been there" and "done that" you don't have a clue.
How does it look from up there on your high horse?
TJ at 4:00PM on May 13th 2008
708. TJ
My own opinion is that in school children should be taught the biological facts regarding sexuality; i.e. why their bodies are changing and how these changes can create a child. They should be taught the stages of human development from conception to birth. It should end there. The discussion of abstinence and contraception does not belong in school. Many parents will object to the discussion of contraception and others will object to abstinence. Abstinence should be taught at home and in the family's religious faith. Contraception should be discussed with a doctor. It is the parents’ responsibility to educate their child about the values and behavior expected. Schools are not a substitute for parents. I also object to distributing contraception in schools. This should be purchased from a healthcare provider. It is not the school’s job to provider contraception.
Condoms have a 10% failure rate. The only effective method of combating HIV transmission is for anyone that has ever been sexually active to get tested. If you are positive, get medical treatment and remain abstinent, unless you marry. If you are negative, remain abstinent, unless you marry. Once married, remain monogamous and chaste in the marriage. Also, do not become an IV drug user and seek treatment, if you are an IV drug user. Do not share needles. Personally, I support mandatory testing, but that is my opinion.
janesophie1 at 4:41PM on May 13th 2008
709. "Have you ever had a child? Been pregnant? They you shouldn't go there. As any mother will tell you, until you have "been there" and "done that" you don't have a clue."
TJ
You don't have to experience something directly to have an opinion. I was referring to being a woman from the aspect of being capable of conceiving a child and being aware of that fact.
Signing off, God bless!
janesophie1 at 5:02PM on May 13th 2008
710. Final thought: Everyone has an opinion. We are free to fight for our beliefs. I will fight for my views and others have the same right. The constitution ALSO guarantees this!
janesophie1 at 5:08PM on May 13th 2008
711.
I don't care how you cloak it in spirituality or your insinuations that only those with good character would abstain as you recommend.....
I just feel sad for you, js. Your attitude about sex is just...... very sad.
I hope you never marry. I don't intend for that to be mean. But I think with your attitude about sex, you are not likely to have a healthy, joyful sex life with whoever your husband might be. He will treat you as a "vessel" for his emissions, might even end up abusive to you due to his disappointment and will likely find his true enjoyment outside the marriage.
I think your own personal happiness will only come from your religion and your pursuit of inflicting your religion on others.
Good luck with that.
Shaking Head at 8:57PM on May 13th 2008
712. Brandon post 690 - No you are messed in the head, no self will, incontinent... selfish, or just thinking with your little head. Whatever... take responsibility for your actions. Pretty plain, murder of the innocent is not being responsible.
Man_in_Wilderness at 10:10PM on May 13th 2008
713. TJ post 705 - middle school kids should not be having sex. Where are the parents? Drunk, doped up, don't care. Abstinece should be encouraged, by the parents. Being a responsible parent maybe a little bit of work, but the kids should be worth it. Don't you think?
Man_in_Wilderness at 10:24PM on May 13th 2008
714. shaking head post 711 - janesophie1 will be a good wife someday, to a lucky man. And will have honor on her side. Not some two bit bimbo that can't keep her legs together.
Man_in_Wilderness at 10:31PM on May 13th 2008
715. Whatever, miw.
I still think she is the kind of woman who will never make a normal, flesh and blood man happy.
And SHE will never be happy with the demands of marriage.
Someone asked if she was a nun. Her answer implied that she would like to be but that she wasn't "graced" with the call from god to be one. (or something like that. I'm too lazy to go back and find her wording.)
I think she should pursue that a bit more. At the least she should focus her life on the church and the obvious pleasure she gets from attempting to dictate what others should do. THAT'S where she finds her happiness.
No man - even a religious man - will put up with someone like her dictating to him, that's for sure.
Shaking Head at 10:46PM on May 13th 2008
716. Who is Peter Singer to determine when a child's life should be ended? Obviously, he has no respect for life if he's willing to make such a decision even if there was no God!
And, a question for D'Souza, i was there at the debate. Prof Singer did ask Dinesh a question regarding a prophecy Jesus made about Him returning in reference to Matthew 24. Dinesh never answered the question.
I would think because if you read that passage literally, Jesus Christ is talking to His Disciples in reference to that generation. But since Dinesh is among most evangelicals who believe in "Free Will", which is hard to find in the bible (Free will theologically speaking), I guess he can't answer Singers question.
Thats A Great Question at 11:12PM on May 13th 2008
717. Shaking Head
Shaking Head,
All I can say is that you completely misunderstand me. I never said that it is easy to abstain. I have feelings and desires, but I am in control of my sexuality; not the other way around. Sex is beautiful, wonderful and great, but it is also sacred and holy. It should not be a recreational activity. Our culture has debased sex. If someone were to come from the past; they would be appalled. We have millions of abortions, rapes, pornography, adultery, rampant divorce, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc. In our society, a woman can become a man. She can keep her reproductive organs and marry a woman (that supposedly has no sexual interest in men). She can then become pregnant with a turkey baster! God help us because all of this is normal, everyday behavior. We have regressed as a civilization. We have no self-control, self-respect, or respect for others. Anything is permissible. Maybe you enjoy living in a culture that is morally depraved, but millions of people are horrified by the degradation around us. If you think this is normal that is your right, but as for me and my house, we will serve the lord!
janesophie1 at 9:02AM on May 14th 2008
718. Shaking Head, I think she'll be fine. Kind of like riding a bicycle. She would be an honorable woman, and respectful to her husband.
I think she would try to be a Proverbs 31: type woman. And just because we are Christians do not mean we can't enjoy one another, husband and wife, in the confines of our bedroom.
Man_in_Wilderness at 9:23AM on May 14th 2008
719. "We have millions of abortions, rapes, pornography, adultery, rampant divorce, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc."
Other than pornography, and "rampant divorce" all of those have been around since the beginning of our civilization. Even porn has been around for ages, it just wasn't so readily available as it is now. And you can think a self-centered king for adding divorce to the bible, something that most Christians seem to openly accept as being morally acceptable these days. Why is it that divorce rates seem to be lower among non-religious people than religious ones? Aren't you the ones that are morally superior (allegedly)?
And I really hate to have to keep reminding people of this, but Christianity never used to have a problem with pedophilia. It was a common practice for a young girl to be married off to an older man up until fairly recently in history.
Marriage wasn't even always about procreation, it was about property rights and social alliances. Obviously organized religions took a liking to their flock increasing in number, because that served to make them more powerful, but marriage wasn't originally around for that purpose. Women weren't allowed to "marry for love", their husbands were chosen for them, and they were forced into it.
By the way, most secularists have a serious problem with pedophilia too, you seem to think that only religious people can get offended. I think child abuse is totally inexcusable. We have more than ample evidence to suggest that it can seriously psychologically mess a child up to be sexually abused. I feel nothing but pity for children that have to go through with this.
Why was the Catholic Church so complacent in protecting known REPEATED child-abusers if they care so much about their members? This goes up to the highest ranks of the church as well, so you can't just blame "a few bad seeds in the church", these are/were the most "trusted" men in the church. While I really can't blame you for not having it affect your personal faith in your religion, I definately can't understand why you would hold anything but complete and utter contempt for the Catholic Church as an organization for serious ethical and moral breaches such as these. They're content to just pay off victims, while continuing to protect their own.
zatheus at 8:23AM on May 15th 2008
720. " I definately can't understand why you would hold anything but complete and utter contempt for the Catholic Church as an organization for serious ethical and moral breaches such as these. They're content to just pay off victims, while continuing to protect their own."
zatheus
Some members of the church have made serious mistakes in handling sexual abuse claims. I do not condone allowing priests known to be pedophiles to continue in the ministry. I also think that accepting money, rather than going to the authorities is abhorrent. Children are precious and should always be protected. The church is still holy because it is protected by the Holy Spirit. Jesus works through our sinful nature. Even those priests, if properly ordained could not destroy the grace of the sacraments. The church is the bride of Christ. She is composed of sinners. Christ is the bridegroom and it is him we worship. As awful as this sexual abuse crisis has been; I am glad it has happened. It will cleanse the church of these men and our lord will replace them with holy, virtuous men. I want to stress that most priests are not pedophiles. Unfortunately, the good suffer with the evil. Christ will send his angels to gather the wheat when he comes to claim his bride.
“And I really hate to have to keep reminding people of this, but Christianity never used to have a problem with pedophilia. It was a common practice for a young girl to be married off to an older man up until fairly recently in history.
Marriage wasn't even always about procreation; it was about property rights and social alliances. Obviously organized religions took a liking to their flock increasing in number, because that served to make them more powerful, but marriage wasn't originally around for that purpose. Women weren't allowed to "marry for love", their husbands were chosen for them, and they were forced into it.
You cannot equate marriage between a young girl and older man in previous cultures with pedophilia. People had shorter life spans in the past and therefore things were done earlier. Also, there was no such thing as adolescence; until recently. When a girl or boy reached the age of around 13 they were considered adults. Marie Antoinette married Louis XVI at 15, but that was normal. My grandmother married in the 1920’s and she was in her teens. Human beings in our sinful nature have corrupted God’s plan for marriage which was to unite a man and woman in a spiritual and physical union. The sex act was designed to be unitive AND procreative. We have debased sexuality by making it recreational. This debasement has resulted in the widespread acceptance of perversions.
janesophie1 at 11:12AM on May 15th 2008