Sinister: Peter Singer Backs assisted suicide for the mentally disabled and babies by Tony Ademiluyi

Share this post:


Influential global philosopher and Father of the Animal Rights Movement, Peter Singer has thrown his weight behind assisted suicide or euthanasia of the mentally disabled and babies.

He bared his murderous views in an exclusive interview with Journalist Dylan Matthews where he said:

But what is correct about what you said was that when I started thinking about the ethics of how we treat animals, I started asking questions about, well, is it only inflicting suffering on animals that is bad, preventing them from having enjoyable lives? Or is it the fact that we kill them?

That led me to think, well, what is it that makes killing wrong? And because I’m not religious, I was not going to say “because we have an immortal soul,” or “because God forbids it.” I started thinking, well, maybe it’s something to do with our intellect, the fact that we want to plan for the future and that if we are killed, we can’t.

So I thought about that and that made me think, well, okay, so maybe the humane killing of a non-human animal is not as bad as the humane killing of a normal human being. I still think that.

But suppose that you have a human who lacks the cognitive capacities that enable normal humans to think about their future. That could be an infant. None of us were born with those capacities. Or it could be someone with a severe intellectual disability that was not treatable. For that matter, it could be somebody who didn’t really have much of a future to look forward to because they were terminally ill and they were expecting to die within weeks or months, and their quality of life had fallen to a level where they didn’t think it was worth going on.

Singer is justifying the killing of infants and people with disabilities who lack an undefinable level of cognitive capacity. Matthews asks Singer what he thinks about the pushback from the disability rights movement. Singer responds with his support for killing infants:

You’re right to say that in terms of the underlying ethical arguments, that’s not changed. I still think there are cases where parents should have the option of ending the life of their severely disabled infant.

Let me just say a couple of things why I think that’s not as radical as some people might think. It’s standard practice in neonatal intensive care units pretty much everywhere, that if a child is born with a very severe disability, doctors will ask parents whether they want to put the child on life support or not — or if the child is on life support when the disability is discovered, whether they wish to remove life support.

If you have, let’s say, a premature infant who’s had massive brain bleeding, or a hemorrhage in the brain, which does happen with very premature infants, and the doctors say, “Would you like to take your child off life support? This is the prognosis. Your child will never be able to live independently, will never be able to recognize the child’s mother or father, and will basically be needing complete care. Would you like to take this child off life support?” That’s a decision to ask: “Would you like the child to die?” There’s no other way of glossing over that.

The success of the international pro-choice agenda is sturdily backed by intellectuals like Peter Singer. It is the duty of the State to take adequate care of the interests of the weak and vulnerable and not to brutally murder them.

It is sinister and inhumane to kill innocent babies and the mentally disabled simply because of who they are. Don’t they especially the latter deserve love? Aren’t they also human beings as well?

If according to the Declaration of Independence written by America’s Third President, Thomas Jefferson stated unequivocally that all men are born equal, then it should also include the babies and mentally disabled as well. Why the exclusion? What hypocritical hocus pocus!

It is high time that Conservative intellectuals found their voice in the Ivory Towers globally and shaped public opinions with regard to issues such as these.

Silence is conspiratorial and these vulnerable babies and mentally disabled in most cases look up to these scholars of high intellect to keep them alive.

I hope pro-life men of the gown rise up fearlessly to the occasion!

Tony Ademiluyi is the Director, Media & Publicity West Africa for Christian Voice UK and is a contributing writer for the Project for Human Development. He can be reached on +2348167677075.

Support Project for Human Development’s Pro-Life Media Agenda

It is no news that most African nations have bravely pushed back against the liberal agenda of the West to foist the destructive agenda on hitherto Sovereign African nations through their local legislatures.

What is unknown to most Africans is the surreptitious hijacking of the soul of the African media to aggressively push this nauseating culture of death preying on the ignorance of many Africans on noble pro-life issues.

It is therefore imperative for African Conservatives/Pro-Lifers to control the media space and positively use it to shape local public opinion.

If you want genuine sustainable development in Africa which can only occur with the pro-life ideology, consider making a generous donation to 0042779816 Project for Human Development, Access Bank.