BEASTIALIY AT PRINCETON, OR HOW I STOPPED LOVING MY WIFE AND MOVED IN WITH MY DOG

"My Gawwwd, the dam baby is going to have brown eyes? I want one with blue eyes. Flush it. Dam it, I guess I'll have to hook up with somebody who has blue eyes." And so it goes in the latest abortion view from the Left. Drudge linked this AM to a Guardian piece from Britain about a late term abortion because of a cleft pallette, something that is easily correctable these days. During one of my heroin binges I might rail something illiterate like this

...bitches killing teeny babies because they are just bitches and all these bitches ought to be taken out and.....blah blah blah

However, after taking a quart of Thorazine to get straight I might read a little and find that there is a growing field of thought---I hate to tell you this stuff is thought---headed by a Princeton prof , Peter Singer---appointed by former Clinton chairman of the Bio-ethics panel--- who argues that even killing a kid already born might be OK in certain circumstances. Then I'd really go off. I mean this Princeton oil slick even goes for "consensual beastiality." How do you get a goat to give consent? This is the kind of thing that might work for high school boys who don't want to wear a condom while having sex with a real girl because they don't want to support a child, but can you really get it up for a Dalmation? But, not to worry. The Evangelical Outpost has outed the guy beauteously

“Ordinarily he is insane,” said Heinrich Heine, “but he has lucid moments when he is only stupid.” The 19th century German poet made his observation about a newly appointed ambassador. But his words are even more applicable to a different kind of appointee, the Princeton professor and ethicist Peter Singer

Singer is often referred to without a hint of irony as an “ethicist.” He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals. He is also a staunch defender of non-voluntary euthanasia, infanticide, and even bestiality (assuming it is consensual). As I’ve written before, if he we were teaching high school he would be unemployable. But the Ivory Tower is more tolerant of idiocy and so the Australian philosopher has been able to secure positions at some of the most elite universities on three continents. He currently holds the DeCamp Professor of Bioethics, University Center for Human Values, Princeton University, a position he was appointed to by Harold Shapiro, the former chair of Bill Clinton's bioethics panel.

In the past I’ve been criticized for railing against Singer without adequately addressing the reason he holds the views he does. As Kevin T. Keith said, “you simply gape at Singer's positions as if they were self-evidently wrong simply because he proceeds from different (and more rationally grounded) premises.” Kevin has a valid complaint. I do assume Singer’s positions are self-evidently wrong because they are, in fact, self-evidently wrong. The Nazis also had “rationally grounded premises” for killing Jews but that does not mean that I need to explain were the Holocaust was "wrong." Defending the killing of newborn disabled children is self-evidently wrong whether it is being advocated in the concentration camps of Germany or in an Ivy-league university in New Jersey.

But I don’t just think that most of Singer’s views are self-evidently wrong, I think they are stupid. Singer may very well be a genius but his arguments often exhibit such a complete lack of intelligence that it is hard to imagine why anyone would take him seriously. Consider, for example, this selection (via Gerard Van der Leun) from Singer’s FAQ: a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person....

Now go here and read the post. Then read his blog and I think you'll have him bookmarked for weekly reading. He is a hell of a writer, one of my favorites, and has more than a little to say. I have him linked on the Left too.

For more on this Singer guy at Princeton, try this one on---different link---

For example, he argues that "it might be more compassionate to carry out medical experiments on hopelessly disabled, unconscious orphans than on perfectly healthy rats." Also, "parents who give birth to a hemophiliac might be better off killing it, "especially if they could replace the dead child with one that was likely to have a better life."

Maybe you should put that Ivy degree in a drawer til Harvard [that beast Larry Summers] and Princeton leave the stage.