Matt Archbold graduated from Saint Joseph’s University in 1995. He is a former journalist who left the newspaper business to raise his five children. He writes for the Creative Minority Report.
Princeton University "ethics" professor Peter Singer is at it again, now arguing that it is eminently “reasonable” for the government to refuse treatment to severely disabled babies.
This is nothing new for Singer but what's new is that he thinks his ideas are winning. Spoiler alert: They are.
WND pulled the quotes from Singer's appearance on the Aaron Klein radio show. Oh, and notice how he calls the baby in question "it" constantly.:
If an infant is born with a massive hemorrhage in the brain that means it will be so severely disabled that if the infant lives it will never even be able to recognize its mother, it won’t be able to interact with any other human being, it will just lie there in the bed and you could feed it but that’s all that will happen, doctors will turn off the respirator that is keeping that infant alive. I don’t know whether they are influenced by reducing costs. Probably they are just influenced by the fact that this will be a terrible burden for the parents to look after, and there will be no quality of life for the child. So we are already taking steps that quite knowingly and intentionally are ending the lives of severely disabled infants. And I think we ought to be more open in recognizing that this happens.
Now, remember how all the changes we've made to our healthcare system were supposed to take out inequalities because some people could afford to keep a severely disabled infant alive while poor people might not necessarily be able to. So, the solution according to Singer, it would seem, is to have them all die. Now, that's progress, isn't it? He continued:
I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes. I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicaid.”
And I think it will be reasonable for insurance companies also to say, “You know, we won’t insure you for this or we won’t insure you for this unless you are prepared to pay an extra premium, or perhaps they have a fund with lower premiums for people who don’t want to insure against that.” Because I think most people, when they think about that, would say that’s quite reasonable. You know, 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.
The Nazis sought to kill "undesirables" in their quest to build a Master Race. Today, some seek to kill the "unfit" for cost reasons or in the name of misplaced mercy. But whether its murder in the name of mercy or cost or equality, it's still the same.
We live in an interesting time where religion is often accused of being the primary source of violence in the world. But those who fall prey to the ideology of secularism aren't granted their humanity so they are not listed as victims. They are called odd terms like "potential humans" or "severely disabled" or "unfit." In reality, the only way to avoid a complete victory by Singer's secularist ethos is Christ. He is our only hope. And unless we prize every life, we allow humans to become a budget item. And when humanity becomes a budget item you don't want to be in the red.