Christianity Harmful to Animals, Says Animal Rights Godfather

[Jenny]

Linky


My favorite parts?

"In an address to the national Animal Rights 2002 conference in McLean, Va., on Saturday, Singer also reiterated his controversial position that a "severely disabled" infant may be killed up to 28 days after its birth if the parents deem the baby's life is not worth living."

"If you have a being that is not sentient, that is not even aware, then the killing of that being is not something that is wrong in and of itself," he stated.

"I think that a chimpanzee certainly has greater self-awareness than a newborn baby," he told CNSNews.com"


My god, this man is a nutcase!

[Jenny]

This is even worse! He's absolutely looney!

"Singer also defended his previous writings that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships as long as they are consensual. When asked by CNSNews.com how an animal can consent to sexual contact with a human, he replied, "Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact."

[whitak24]

another interesting example of his logic.......

When asked by CNSNews.com why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard.

"Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices," he said.

[poiselle]

My brief required foray into the humanities when I was an undergrad involved among others a philosophy class in which his book was required reading. I am an unabashed speciest which apparently is not different than being racist. He is an interesting fellow. I must give him the fact that he carries his logic straight through. I don't think you can completely take what he says at face value though since he is a philosopher and they love thinking about things in abstract ways to show how smart they are. He is pretty smart. Weird, but smart.

[joe52985]

whoa...there is a fine line between genious and insanity, that dude hurdled over that line. humans shouldnt eat animals but we should be able to kill our children before their first month is up, this is not like canceling a credit card after 30 days because you dont like the features of it, geeez i am getting tired of these "thinkers" heh, we all need a little more common sense!

[sbp]

Singer=nutcase

[Apex]

Originally posted by joe52985
whoa...there is a fine line between genious and insanity, that dude hurdled over that line.

[joey from friends]He's way way over the line. He's so far over the line, the line's a dot to him.[/joey from friends]

[brainsmile]

Originally posted by Apex


[joey from friends]He's way way over the line. He's so far over the line, the line's a dot to him.[/joey from friends]

Did I just call Apex stupid?

[Grimm]

If he is such a great thinker, why doesn't he start solving world hunger, instead of proposing that it is ok to molest animals? Giving animals more rights than humans isn't going to solve anything. Careful consideration and utilization of our resources will.

Then again I think you should be able to change your minds about kids untill they reach the age of 12. Used to be that when parents had a kid that was a "bad seed" they were held respnsible for "removing it from society". As I see the poor excuses for human beings that wander around this planet, I wonder if it was a good idea to stop... Would have nipped the whole Singer thing in the but.

[molecularfire]

I dunno... some of his thoughts are a little off by our standards, but I can see other cultures believing them. I don't think anything that he is saying is new.

While I don't agree with how far he takes this, I do agree that a chimp. is more self-aware than a newborn baby. I disagree with the killing of newborns though... because 1) the newborn has the potential to be more self-aware than the chimp will ever be. It is wrong to kill a newborn because of that potential. and 2) I don't trust the parent's ability to separate out what is best for a "severely disabled" child over what would be easier for them.

His having intimate realations with animals thing is kinda sick. I can concede that when an animal is in heat, the animal is looking to mate. However, it goes down to hormonal manipulation. The animal is in heat and doesn't have access to another animal of the same species (because we as humans withheld it from them). I say put another animal of the same species and a human in there and let the animal choose.

Also, he makes a couple of very speciest statements:

1)Ex: "If you have a being that is not sentient, that is not even aware, then the killing of that being is not something that is wrong in and of itself,"

2) That he would kill a bunch of termites just so he wouldn't have to find a new place to live. The termites are not endangering his life, just his convenience.

3) When asked by CNSNews.com why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard.

"Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices," he said.
etc...