An article about a pending speech by Peter Singer in the Phoenix Times demonstrates once again that some of the best journalism and commentary can be found in the alternative press. From the story, byline Sarah Fenske:
In his 1985 book Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants, the Australian-born philosopher writes that parents should have the right to kill a baby that’s born disabled—and not just have the right to do it, but in some instances that disabled babies literally should be killed.Let me be clear here. Singer’s talking about killing babies after they’ve been born. He’s written that parents should have the right to kill a child within 28 days of birth. And if a family is inflicted with a senile relative, well, children ought to be allowed to kill feeble parents, too. Humanely, of course.
Actually, Singer has extended the infanticide license to almost a year. But I digress:
So, I was surprised to hear that Arizona State University is flying Peter Singer to campus for a lecture next week. And even more surprised when I heard the topic. He’s going to talk about conscientious food choices.
It’s more than a bit ironic. Here’s a guy who argues, in effect, that human rights are limited to certain humans. That the siblings of a child with Down syndrome would naturally be happier without a disabled family member, so it’s worth killing Down syndrome newborns. That the happiness of some people matters more than the very survival of others.
Now he wants to tell us how to eat?
Pushing death pays. Recall Jack Kevorkian was paid $50,000 to speak at the University of Florida. But Singer hasn’t actually murdered anyone, so he gets a paltry $20,000. Perhaps if he acted on his culture of death convictions he could give himself a raise.
The organizers aren’t letting Singer be confronted about anything other than food. So much for the free exchange of ideas on today’s modern college campus.
