|
'08 Walk for Life * PICTURES FROM 2006 MARCH FOR LIFE * Pregnancy Centers          About Us Volunteer Donate Home |
Singer, the founding philosopher of the animal rights movement, says the notion that human life is sacred is a "speciesist" illusion. Humans are just one animal among many. And he apparently thinks newborns should not have the rights granted by the U.S. Constitution. "Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person," he writes. But why are infants nonpersons? Because animals are self-aware, but newborn babies are not. So "the life of a newborn baby is of less value . . . than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."
Most ethicists, arriving at the conclusion that a pig is more valuable than a human baby, would probably re-examine their premises and think about framing a somewhat less repellent argument. But Singer is serenely confident in his coldly abstract line of reasoning. In the words of bioethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania, Singer is "an example of how theory can take you places way off the map."
Odd theory can also take you to Princeton University, where Singer has been installed as the first full-time professor of bioethics at the University Center for Human Values. Unsurprisingly, the university is coming under heavy fire for making the appointment. Last week some 200 students, disability activists, and pro-lifers protested Singer's first classes on campus. Presidential candidate Steve Forbes, a Princeton trustee, fanned the flames by announcing he will stop contributing money to the university unless it gets rid of the professor.
How about some balance? Singer, it should be said, has solid academic credentials, writes well, and has had a major impact with his animal writings. The wretched excess here is not that he was hired but that Princeton's only full-time professor of bioethics is someone so far out that he really doesn't have much credibility in his own field. Princeton President Harold Shapiro must know this, since he is chairman of President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Committee.
Maybe the idea was to get someone "hot" and controversial to stir up the students and draw a crowd. If so, marketing has succeeded at the expense of common sense. It's peculiar to install at a Center for Human Values a professor who believes that traditional human values are mostly illusory. Princeton seems surprised by the intensity of the opposition to Singer. Apparently it did not occur to the university that many people would resent the mainstreaming of his infanticide philosophy. Those who dismiss this argument would undoubtedly react differently if the university had picked a pro-life creationist as its star bioethicist. Princeton is surely not going to fire Singer, but it should make sure other views and other less narrow bioethicists are heard on campus.
Demonstrators often shout "Nazi" at Singer, which is excessive–three of his four grandparents died in the Holocaust. But there are some eerie parallels between Singer's views and those of the medical establishment of the early Hitler days. The Nazis' first systematic attempt to eliminate a defined population group was directed at severely disabled children. Infants are a logical place to start. They are not productive and can't speak. Then, as now, the high rhetoric of values and "lives worth living" mingled with more down-to-Earth talk of the burden of high costs. A language shift paved the way.Singer denies some handicapped babies the protection of the word person. The Nazis thought to do that too, preferring the word abortions for disabled infants.
Started out subtly. In the Nazi culture, the initial step onto the slippery slope was to deny that rights were inherent in every person. Instead, rights came to depend on physical ability or intelligence, as personhood for Singer now depends on self-awareness. Leo Alexander, in his postwar analysis of the medical profession under the Nazis, wrote that "the beginning at first was merely a subtle shift in the basic attitude of physicians that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived." After this ethical wedge was in place, the only question was who would decide which lives were worth living. Before long, babies judged defective were routinely starved to death or killed by drugs or gas.
Those who think that Singer's 28-day grace period for killing babies might easily be extended can find parallels in the German experience too. The Nazi three-year grace period was eventually extended up to the midteen years. Once protections no longer are ensured at birth, there is nothing sacrosanct about 28 days or 56. Political and financial pressures could move the age limit for infanticide.
Trips down the slippery slope usually start with word games, blurring of lines, and high-minded rhetoric intended to mask some ghastly option. Singer, at least, is totally honest about what he wants. He puts his ghastly option right out in the open for all of us to see.
Be a TLC Lifeguard
Before You Leave...
|