Gosnell, Peter Singer, and the Main Stream Media

fetus1The last few days, I have been writing about America’s Auschwitz, the Gosnell Case. As a Christian man, and the father of a special young lady, now in her 20s, I just could not wrap my head around the barbarism displayed by Gosnell and those in his profession, and the “good Nazi” mentality of the MSM and their fellow Liberals, who so blithely turn the other way to the unmitigated carnage, caused by these ‘doctors”.

Then, the name Peter Singer came to mind.

Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher and a visiting professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He also has worked as a lecturer at Oxford University, New York University, Monash University, the University of Colorado (Boulder), the University of California (Irvine), the University of Melbourne, and Princeton University’s Center for Human Values. Singer authored the 1975 book Animal Liberation, a landmark text that effectively launched the modern animal rights movement.

In his book, this lunatic claims that people should respect the moral worth of all animals…not on the basis of the animals’ intelligence, but instead, because of their ability to experience pain and suffering. He equates the denial of animals’ basic “rights” as a form of discrimination called “speciesism,” which he erroneously compares to racism and sexism.

According to Singer, it is wrong to value the life of human beings more than the lives of animals. Singer, an atheist, of course, rejects the scripture from Genesis that man has been given dominion over animals and that people are made uniquely in the image of God. He also believes that all animals have souls who are just as worthy of life. as ours’:

All three [of the foregoing axioms] taken together do have a very negative influence on the way in which we think about animals.

Singer goes on to explain that his mission is to challenge “this superiority of human beings”.

Singer, in 1979, wrote and published Practical Ethics, in which he continued his rant that animals are equal to human beings. He also states (hold on to something) that human parents should be legally permitted to kill a “severely disabled” infant up to 28 days after its birth if they deem the baby’s life unworthy of preservation.

According to this nutjob,

There are some circumstances…where the newborn baby is severely disabled and where the parents think that it’s better that that child should not live, when killing the newborn baby is not at all wrong.

Singer wrote an article for scotsman.com, in August of 2008. Here is an excerpt.

Abortion receives extensive coverage in developed countries, especially in the United States, where Republicans have used opposition to it to rally voters. But much less attention is given to the 86 per cent of all abortions that occur in the developing world. Although most countries in Africa and Latin America have laws prohibiting abortion in most circumstances, official bans do not prevent high abortion rates.

In Africa, there are 29 abortions per 1,000 women, and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America. The comparable figure for Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted in most circumstances, is 12. According to a recent report by the World Health Organisation, unsafe abortions lead to the death of 47,000 women a year, almost all of them in developing countries. Restricting access to legal abortion leads many poor women to seek abortion from unsafe providers. The legalisation of abortion on request in South Africa in 1998 saw abortion-related deaths drop by 91 per cent. And the development of the drugs misoprostol and mifepristone, which can be provided by pharmacists, makes relatively safe and inexpensive abortion possible in developing countries.

Opponents will respond that abortion is, by its very nature, unsafe – for the foetus. They point out that abortion kills a unique, living human individual. That claim is difficult to deny, at least if by “human” we mean “member of the species Homo sapiens.”

It is also true that we cannot simply invoke a woman’s “right to choose” in order to avoid the ethical issue of the moral status of the foetus. If the foetus really did have the moral status of any other human being, it would be difficult to argue that a pregnant woman’s right to choose includes the right to bring about the death of the foetus, except perhaps when the woman’s life is at stake.

The fallacy in the anti-abortion argument lies in the shift from the scientifically accurate claim that the foetus is a living individual of the species Homo sapiens to the ethical claim that the foetus therefore has the same right to life as any other human being. Membership of the species Homo sapiens is not enough to confer a right to life.

We can plausibly argue that we ought not to kill, against their will, self-aware beings who want to continue to live. We can see this as a violation of their autonomy, or a thwarting of their preferences. But why should a being’s potential to become rationally self-aware make it wrong to end its life before it has the capacity for rationality or self-awareness?

We have no obligation to allow every being with the potential to become a rational being to realise that potential. If it comes to a clash between the supposed interests of potentially rational but not yet conscious beings and the vital interests of actually rational women, we should give preference to the women every time.

I know that I will be called a “‘Christianist’ Right Wing Reactionary Idiot”, by any Liberal, who happens to read this. But, frankly, Scarlett…well, you know.

I find it sadly fascinating that the Main Stream Media had to be forced by those of us in the New Media, to cover the Gosnell Case. They wanted, as sworn members of the Obama Propaganda Corps (pronounced “corpse”) to ignore Gosnell and his butchery, because it did not fit the safe, antiseptic version of the abortion procedure, which they have been pushing since before Roe vs. Wade.

What they have been slapped in the face with is a harsh reality. The Gosnell Case is one of American Infanticide. There is nothing that they can do to defend it.

I find it horrifying that there are Americans, who believe as Singer does, that we are no better than the toad in our front yard. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to “get rid” of us, while we are defenseless, in the same manner that an animal shelter gasses its unwanted animals.

Mankind wase given dominion over the animals. We Are different. Within each of us is that Divine Spark”, which eternally links us to the Creator. As King David said,

For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalm 139:13-16)

Take time this Sunday to pray for our nation. God shall not be mocked.

Until He Comes, 




6 thoughts on “Gosnell, Peter Singer, and the Main Stream Media

  1. There’s no true word that’s not under attack.

    “Thrown to the ground” yet?

    Osteen tossed this in my box this morning: No person, no sickness, no disappointment can stop God’s plan for your life. What He promised will come to pass.

    (Skipping whatever else might be said re. Osteen — I like the guy), he reminds me that God will accomplish his purpose in the world and in history. And when you think about it, God’s purpose in the world — that’s me. And you KJ, and any of his people reading this, both the ones that know it already and the ones that don’t know it already. God’s not trying to construct skyscrapers. His purpose is his people. And his word doesn’t return to him empty — he’s serious about that kind of thing.

    We’re sitting in the dark here, but we’re lights. And it’s cold, but we’re heat. There is a sound of wailing, but we have some joy in us that keeps welling up from the inside and keeps our strength from being sapped. We’re armored and trained and guided and protected, and everything we need, our roots pull from another place altogether.

    The source of love for all the world knows our names, and we have his attention. We’re on the winning side, and the victory was never in question!

    Take heart, peeps!


  2. I don’t understand why anyone would listen to this bonehead; he wites a book on “practical ethics” yet creates his own ethical dilemma; if it’s “unethical” to mistreat (one would assume killing them is included) an animal because it feels pain, how is it ethical to “abort” (that is, kill) a pre-born baby who can also feel pain (which this idiot condones)?

    Aside from the completely unjustifiable ethical position, such sloppy thinking being taught to our students is why this country is in as bas a shape as it is.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s