Diabolical Disorientation: A child’s life has no value, but an ethicist’s does

The sickeningly lost far left “ethicist” Dr. Peter Singer is at it again, opining that intellectually disabled children are less “valuable” than animals.  This kind of wholly perverse, reprobate sense is where the inevitable logic of the leftist-materialist conception of the world will drive someone – to the brink of insanity and right over it.

In his apologetics for infanticide, Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer has used a baby with Down syndrome as an example of a killable infant based on utilitarian measurements. (He actually supports infanticide because babies–whether disabled or not–are, in his view, not “persons.”)

To Singer, moral value primary comes from intellectual capacities, and that means that developmentally and cognitively disabled human beings (also, the unborn and infants) have less value than other human beings, and indeed, a lower worth than some animals. [Since he bases his view of a right to life on such arbitrary standards, when super-brilliant AI machines get developed by stupid technologists who create what they cannot control, and they develop capacities infinitely above human intelligence, Singer will have no complaint when they decide to kill all of us off?  What is the floor of intelligence that allows one to have a right to life? Who gets to decide this?  Deranged imbeciles like Singer?  What is different between Nazi’s deciding all Jews (and Catholics and Gypsies and others) had to die based on their own arbitrary definitions on who gets to live, and Singer’s?  I suppose we can thank God that Singer is not, yet, empowered to make such decisions.]

Were society to ever adopt Singer’s bigoted anti-human exceptionalism views, it would mark the end of universal human rights, opening the door to tyrannical pogroms against the most weak and vulnerable–you know, the kind of people that the Singers of the world deem resource wasters. [Materialists almost always posit life as a zero sum game – if someone is better off, that means someone else must of necessity be worse off.  In a sick sort of way, they demand the deaths of others so they can have it better.]

It would also break the spine of unconditional love, as our children would have to earn their place by possessing requisite capacities.

Take the recent statements by Singer, published in the Journal of Practical Ethics in which he explains why he would adopt a child with Down syndrome out (my emphasis).

He then expresses a profound bigotry against people with cognitive and developmental disabilities:.

For me, the knowledge that my [hypothetical Down] child would not be likely to develop into a person whom I could treat as an equal, in every sense of the word, who would never be able to have children of his or her own, who I could not expect to grow up to be a fully independent adult, and with whom I could expect to have conversations about only a limited range of topics would greatly reduce my joy in raising my child and watching him or her develop. [You are an idiot. Thank God He never gave you such a child.  The parents of Down Syndrome children I know often regard them as the easiest child to love, as they have no guile, they are as simple, kind, and genuine as one can be.  And yet, very soon, in many countries Down Syndrome people will cease to exist.  No “downie” has been born in Iceland, for instance, in nearly a decade.  All have been killed via elective abortion.]

“Disability” is a very broad term, and I would not say that, in general, “a life with disability” is of less value than one without disability. Much will depend on the nature of the disability. [What if we have a vote, and decide old age is a disability, consumes a disproportionate amount of medical resources for “little” return, and kill everyone over age 70?  How would he feel about that? Age brings with it inevitable disabilities.  Singer, BTW, turns 71 this year.]

But let’s turn the question around, and ask why someone would deny that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being is of less value than the life of a normal human being.

Most people think that the life of a dog or a pig is of less value than the life of a normal human being. On what basis, then, could they hold that the life of a profoundly intellectually disabled human being with intellectual capacities inferior to those of a dog or a pig is of equal value to the life of a normal human being? [Because we’re not pathologically mendacious God-denying amoral monsters like you!  Humans are special, humans are even sacred, in a sense, because they are created in the image and likeness of God.  Denying that leads one open to such gross evils in thinking as Singer routinely demonstrates. I would also ask, hypothetically, how do you “prove” that a dog or a pig or a fruit fly has greater intellectual capacity to a human?  All but the most profoundly disabled people – and note how he mixes, probably deliberately, the notion that someone with Down’s is inevitably profoundly disabled, which is not always the case – can speak, something no dog or pig has ever done.]

This sounds like speciesism to me, and as I said earlier, I have yet to see a plausible defence of speciesism. After looking for more than forty years, I doubt that there is one. [I just gave you one, the difference is, we humans have infinite worth, in all of our individual forms of being, because God gave us that worth by creating us in His image.  The extremely ugly, utilitarian world you posit, Singer, is a direct result of your rejection of God.  I take it Singer has never read Solzhenitsyn, and if he has, he didn’t understand it at all.]

I would also add, this is the kind of inanity that an intellectual comes up with in trying to justify abortion on demand.  That is the specter looming over everything Singer says, the unacknowledged “god” of his moral universe whose awful appetite he must seek to rationalize away.

Speaking of insanity, ever read the history of the various factions of the Japanese far left during the late 60s and early 70s?  In addition to helping found the PLO and stage some of their most horrific early terror attacks, in 1972 they purged half their own membership by murdering them in miserable ways. They then took a hostage and staged a week long standoff with the Japanese police. They were finally arrested after killing two cops and an innocent bystander.

No, not everyone who falls into liberalism will eventually become a hard leftist and even murderously unsane, but the logic of the belief system always tends in that direction.  The fact that abortion is the most sacred policy position/religious doctrine of the ideological left is bloody testimony to that fact.