Bioethicist Peter Singer compared women and children to cows overgrazing a field and said ”” at the global Women Deliver Conference last week, hailed as the most important meeting to focus on women and girls’ human rights in a decade ”” that women’s reproductive rights may one day have to be sacrificed for the environment.
The controversial Princeton University professor, known for championing infanticide and bestiality, was a featured panelist on Thursday at the three-day Women Deliver conference attended by Melinda Gates and more than 4,000 abortion and contraception activists in Kuala Lumpur.
Is this guy [b]serious?[/b]
I’ve always thought of Singer as just another Malthusian advocating for what is essentially a natural selection event: the self-elimination of people who subscribe to his misguided beliefs. At least he’s willing to let people make their own decisions. The conclusion of the article, however, offered a good summary of another perverse line of thought promoted at the conference:
[blockquote]Unwittingly, [New Delhi-based Ford Foundation representative Kavita] Ramdas appears to to be advocating — and adopting herself — the very tenets of Western ideology that underpin the Western population control dogma she so despises: a hedonistic view of sex divorced from nature and family, a complete disregard for some human life, and an irrepressible urge to regulate the behaviour of others.[/blockquote]
Materialist solutions to the problems of materialism always tend toward totalitarianism, leavened with a dash of peculiarly anti-human humanism.
Did I not know that abortion is always and everywhere a grave evil, Singer’s pronouncements might present me with near occasions of sin by tempting me to reconsider whether or not the world would be a better place were God to allow it, albeit only retroactively, and only in relatively rare and specific instances.
But, thankfully, I am pledged to allow God to deal with Singer, and his ilk, and have the duty to pray for them.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Don R is bang on: “Materialist solutions to the problems of materialism always tend toward totalitarianism.” And because the would-be problem solvers are strict materialists, they need spiritual people to make like Elisha and pray that their eyes may be opened to the heavenly power surrounding them.
Bioethicist? Ethicist? Who in the world can bestow such a title on this man?
Reminds me of “That Hideous Strength”.
Frankly, I found Singer’s comments more tolerable than Ramdas’, and I agree Don R is spot-on.
She and others can criticize “American excess” and possibly Melinda Gates did not enjoy this discussion since she resides, in a family of 5, I believe, in a 66,000 square foot house. I reside in a family of six in 2100 square feet, and we do just fine.
But, are Melinda and co. guilty of “excessive consumption” if they can afford to pay their light bill, someone to clean their house, gas bill, etc.? If Ramdas wants to force sterilization, or lack thereof, on people, it doesn’t make much sense to do it to those who CAN afford the children they have. And PLEASE would someone get across to her that abortion is NOT birth control. Birth control is birth control–give a poverty-stricken woman with 9 kids in Mumbai access to free oral contraceptives, or a free tubal ligation. Even what calls itself a “bioethicist” would probably prefer prevention to the “cure” of what is truly mass-murder of the unborn.
I’m not inclined to listen to anyone who can’t get any more intellectually developed than “Suck it up” at an international conference.
Easy for him to say. He’s already here!
Kill the women in utero and reduce the cows and overgrazing! Oh, wait, they do that in India already and in Indian conclaves in Canada and the USA where abortion is legal. Is Pete ahead of or behind the times? And he is male.
In the very long run the cockroaches win. I don’t understand Singer’s problem with this. Why do his positions always privilege the non cockroach position? Is it because he is not a cockroach? Surely not.