Princeton Professor Calls for Killing Disabled Infants

July 03, 2015 (Source:

Disability activists have launched a petition demanding Princeton University professor Peter Singer resign over his outspoken support for euthanasia and infanticide.

Mr. Singer, who teaches bioethics at the private Ivy League university, has for years promoted public policy that would legalize the killing of severely disabled infants, the petition states.

On his faculty page, Mr. Singer argues: “Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.

“Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies,” Mr. Singer continued. “My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life support — which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection — but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.”

More recently, in an April interview with WND’s Aaron Klein, Mr. Singer said bluntly: “I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”

Continue reading…

14 thoughts on “Princeton Professor Calls for Killing Disabled Infants

  • September 7, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    SInger is a jew.

  • September 7, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    This jew Singer, has been saying that for decades. He’s still a professor, still honoured and respected. He calls it Post-Partum Abortion. He used to say there should be a 10-day period after birth when parents could kill babies (with the mother having the final say if the father disagreed). I don’t know if he still has the same 10-say time period in mind. He did say it was a bit arbitrary, but there has to be some sort of humanitarian limit…

    • September 7, 2015 at 10:51 pm

      Its a shame Singer’s parents werent given that option. Hypothetically speaking.

      • September 7, 2015 at 10:59 pm

        Wishing death on other people in the comments section, yeah, forbidden too.

        My only warning.


        • September 7, 2015 at 11:02 pm

          OK boss. It was purely hypothetical. 😉

          • September 8, 2015 at 12:44 am

            My, that escalated quickly.

      • September 8, 2015 at 12:26 am

        Yes. Don’t mention that he’s a “Jew”. Oh right, you didn’t. Good. Don’t identify any enemies!

    • September 7, 2015 at 10:58 pm


      I get the whole thing with the Jews and Bolshevism and stuff, but that doesn’t give us the right to go into broad attacks with people we don’t know. I have no problem with talking about thing groups of Jews did, and I have no problem talking about Singer. I have a problem when we start with “that Jew, Singer”, as though it’s expected because he is a Jew. Some Jews will convert to Christ in the last days, and some Jews who did convert have done much for Holy Orthodoxy– and are even in our calendars.

      And I don’t want to get a lecture about this. Trust me. I’ve heard the whole thing before. Start tossing around the ethnicities as a perjorative, and it’s a bit too far. What Singer is saying is evil outside of his Judaism; it’s not a direct consequence of it, no matter how many other things we find (or claim to) in the Talmud.

      My only warning.


      • September 8, 2015 at 12:21 am

        It’s not expected because he’s a Jew.

        It’s no surprise to find out a spiritually diseased and highly respected scumbag is jew.

        You’re wrong, Jews are massively disproportionally involved in anti-Christian activity and propaganda and all sorts of filth because of their talmudic and kabbalistic social and cultural heritage.

      • September 8, 2015 at 12:24 am

        You mention good and decent jews. They weren’t Kikes. That’s why I usually use the word “Kike” to describe the likes of Singer – in order to avoid confusion with Mr Schwarzbaum the corner grocery store guy who helps old ladies cross the street.

        • September 8, 2015 at 12:43 am

          Oh, I think I think I get how you guys roll.

          P.S. By the way, you didn’t say “this kike”, but “this Jew”, which obviously means you use them interchangeably. But I’m super happy you don’t automatically assume all Jews to be completely evil. It almost makes me feel a little guilty.

          Back to the Daily Stormer with you, pal!

      • September 8, 2015 at 12:27 am

        St Paul: “For you, brethren, are become followers of the churches of God which are in Judea, in Christ Jesus: for you also have suffered the same things from your own coutrymen, even as they have from the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men, prohibiting us to speak to the Gentiles, that they may be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath of God is come upon them to the end.” (1 Thessalonians 2)

        • September 8, 2015 at 12:45 am

          It offends me that you had the ability to cut and paste Scripture past the rest of the bile I was seeing. Bye now!

  • September 7, 2015 at 2:20 pm


    Peter Albert David Singer, AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian Jewish moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular, utilitarian perspective. He is known in particular for his book, Animal Liberation (1975), a canonical text in animal rights/liberation theory.

    Singer served as chair of the philosophy department at Monash University, where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics. In 1996 he stood unsuccessfully as a Greens candidate for the Australian Senate. In 2004 he was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies.

    In June 2012 Singer was named a Companion of the Order of Australia for his services to philosophy and bioethics.

    He serves on the Advisory Board of Incentives for Global Health, the NGO formed to develop the Health Impact Fund proposal. He was voted one of Australia’s ten most influential public intellectuals in 2006. Singer currently serves on the advisory board of Academics Stand Against Poverty (ASAP).n concerns.

    Singer holds that the right to life is essentially tied to a being’s capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is essentially tied to a being’s capacity to feel pain and pleasure.

    In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

    Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns lack the essential characteristics of personhood—”rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness”[20]—and therefore “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living.”

    Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that to which the subject consents. He argues in favour of voluntary euthanasia and some forms of non-voluntary euthanasia, including infanticide in certain instances, but opposes involuntary euthanasia.

    Religious critics have argued that Singer’s ethic ignores and undermines the traditional notion of the sanctity of life. Singer agrees and believes the notion of the sanctity of life ought to be discarded as outdated, unscientific, and irrelevant to understanding problems in contemporary bioethics. Bioethicists associated with the Disability Rights and Disability Studies communities have argued that his epistemology is based on ableist conceptions of disability.

    Singer has experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. His mother had Alzheimer’s disease. He said, “I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult”. In an interview with Ronald Bailey, published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live.

    In a 2001 review of Midas Dekkers’ Dearest Pet: On Bestiality, Singer argues that sexual activities between humans and animals that result in harm to the animal should remain illegal, but that “sex with animals does not always involve cruelty” and that “mutually satisfying activities” of a sexual nature may sometimes occur between humans and animals, and that writer Otto Soyka would condone such activities. This position is countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer’s position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex.

    Singer is an atheist Jew. He was a speaker at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention. He has debated with Christians [sic] such as John Lennox and Dinesh D’Souza. Singer has pointed out the problem of evil as an objection against the Christian conception of god. He stated: “The evidence of our own eyes makes it more plausible to believe that the world was not created by any god at all. If, however, we insist on believing in divine creation, we are forced to admit that the god who made the world cannot be all-powerful and all good. He must be either evil or a bungler.”[40] In keeping with his considerations of non-human animals, Singer also takes issue with the original sin reply to the problem of evil, saying that, “animals also suffer from floods, fires, and droughts, and, since they are not descended from Adam and Eve, they cannot have inherited original sin.”

    Singer is opposed to the death penalty,

Comments are closed.