"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt

One of Salem Oregon's Unofficial Top 1000 Conservative Political Bloggers!!!

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Media Matters, Health Rationing, and Support for Infanticide

Check out this article by Ben Domenech at BigGovernment.com.

While defending Donald Berwick from criticism, Media Matters cited Dr. Peter Singer-- a proponent of infanticide. Brilliant guys. Just brilliant...

Dr. Singer wrote this charming sentiment in 1993:

"To take the lives of [self conscious people], without their consent, is to thwart their desires for the future. Killing a snail or a day-old infant does not thwart any desires of this kind, because snails and newborn infants are incapable of such desires."

Kinda cute, huh? I mean equating newborns to snails and all... Oh, and Dr. Singer also had co-written a book published in 1988 called Should the Baby Live? Catchy title, right?

Domenech has other painful Singer quotes. Check out the article.

And let's conclude with Domenech's own observation:

"Just to be clear: Media Matters for America has no problem quoting, in defense of rationing health care, a person who has bluntly advocated the right to kill newborn babies."

I see no problem here. Do you?

UPDATE: For the sake of clarity this background on Dr. Singer via the about the author blurb for Should the Baby Live?

"Peter Singer is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Centre of Human Bioethics at Monash University in Australia. In addition to his many books on ethics, he has written many articles for The New York Times and The New York Review of Books."

Singer's not a medical doctor. I just want to be clear on that. However, it is to my horror (although not surprise) that he is a professor of philosophy specializing in ethics.


  1. Greetings! Your fellow west coast patriot salutes you!

    Cheerfully added to my "West Coast Resistance" list...


  2. My thanks. I have linked you here too.

  3. We've got to watch those "ethicists" every second. It's unbelievable what is being peddled as ethical behavior these days. "Ethics" just sounds so good, who's to question what these guys are really up to, and their monstrous ideas fly under the banners of coveted and admired University chairs. Every once in a while I hand a short article by one of Obama's medical ethics advisors to an MD. It doesn't take more than about four pages for them to have their eyes opened.

  4. Very true QR and keep doing it.

    So much of American academia, especially the soft sciences, have been subverted (there's really no other word for it) over the past 50 years by people with specific political agendas in mind.

    There's nothing necessarily wrong with pursuing unpopular lines of thinking in a quest for truth. But to intentionally subvert established ideas to push political agendas... Yeah, there's something wrong with that.

  5. It's a boomerang. Whoever pushes facts out of the way in favor of a political (or other) agenda soon loses his or her own ability to distinguish fact from fantasy. Reality being such an unforgiving adversary, an awful lot of people in this fool's vicinity are likely to get hurt when Darwin's Law goes into effect. That's one very important reason why basic, time-tested standards of right and wrong, as simple as they may seem, are mighty important.

  6. Progressives are famous for believing in forced abortions (I don't remember which of BO's czars said it, maybe Cass Sunstein, but one of them said that he believed that it would not be a violation of the Constitution. For the government to force women to have abortions!). Their rationale is the "greater" and "common good" . . . as they define it. This always means that whatever is "pragmatic" and "cost saving" or can in other ways be rationalized (population control is necessary to "save the planet," for instance), they're up for it. That's why progs were big into eugenics . . . all the better to build the perfect society. These are dangerous people.

  7. @ Fuzzy

    I think you're talking about John Holdren, Obama's Science czar. He co-wrote a book called "Eco-Science" with Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich, fellow alarmists themselves-- and required reading in the Ivy League back in the day according to Anne Leary. The book basically described a "Soylent Green" type of society happening in the near future-- the book was written back in the 77.

    I wrote a brief post on in July (I think July) which basically just linked to Michelle Malkin who had some good info and background.

    Here: http://michellemalkin.com/category/czars/john-holdren/

    And specifically this post: http://michellemalkin.com/2009/07/15/study-in-contrasts-christian-scientist-vs-eco-mad-scientist/