Part #3: Animal Rights--The Case Against A. R. Activist Peter Singer by Stella Young

The case against Peter Singer
The Drum By Stella Young

"Australian bioethicist and philosopher Peter Singer has argued the case for selective infanticide.

"Singer, who is arguably better known for his views on animal rights, has views about disability that have been discussed far less here in Australia than they have in the US where he lives and works. I am open about not being a fan of Singer's work, a statement that's often met with confusion among friends and colleagues. "But he does such great things for animal liberation!" they exclaim.

While that may be true, animal liberation is not the only subject of Singer's work. He also believes that parents should be given the choice to have their disabled babies killed after they are born.

His argument is not about the right to terminate pregnancy based on the presence of a disabled foetus, although he does believe this as well, but the active killing of babies born with particular disabilities.

I was once one of these babies.
[emphasis added]

Let me be clear: Singer does not object to my life as it exists now. I am now what he considers to be a person with a right to life. But I, along with all other babies, was not born this way. All babies are born without the capacity to make conscious choices about their preference for life, and so Singer does not consider that they have a right to life in the same way as humans who are capable of this choice. This is especially true, he says, where the infant has a disability.

In his book Practical Ethics, Singer argues the case for selective infanticide. He deems it unfair that "At present parents can choose to keep or destroy their disabled offspring only if the disability happens to be detected during pregnancy. There is no logical basis for restricting parents' choice to these particular disabilities.

If disabled newborn infants were not regarded as having a right to life until, say, a week or a month after birth it would allow parents, in consultation with their doctors, to choose on the basis of far greater knowledge of the infant's condition than is possible before birth."

FROM Stella Young is a comedian, television presenter, disability advocate and was formerly editor of ABC's Ramp Up website. She is an ambassador for Our Watch.

READ THE REST OF THIS POWERFUL ARTICLE AT:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/young-case-against-peter-singer/4199120

IMPORTANT NOTE FROM PREVIOUS SECTIONS OF THIS SERIES:
I didn't post this "case against Peter Singer" because I am opposed to animal rights. On the contrary, Singer makes some good points. Furthermore, I think all humans ought to NOT eat or enslave sentient animals!

Furthermore, I think that animals, besides the human primates, homo sapiens, do have inherent worth.

Furthermore, no animals ought to be caused to suffer as an 'end justifies the means' by humans.

HOWEVER, what is problematic is that some animal rights activists including Peter Singer demean humans--such as his claim that infants AREN'T "PERSONS"!--and claim that all animals are equal to the human species.


Related Questions



In the LIGHT,

Daniel Wilcox