The nation was shocked at the arrest of a Philadelphia doctor and staff members for the murder of babies who were allegedly born via induced premature delivery, and then killed. The clinic also did late term abortions, including after viability.
Over at Secondhand Smoke, I ask an important question: How is what happened in Philadelphia morally different than what Peter Singer’s values would allow? (Peter Singer is the (in)famous Princeton bioethics professor who argues that a newborn infant is not a person, and thus can be killed in some circumstances.)
I extensively quote Singer on the issues of infanticide and late term abortion. Here is my answer:
Recapping: Singer supports late term abortion if the the reason to kill is “good,” which, considering his example cited [gender balancing a family], is a very low standard indeed. He strongly implies that a full term fetus has greater moral worth than a prematurely born baby. Besides, we are repeatedly told we have no right to judge a woman’s reasons. So, to answer my own question, other than technical issues of clinical procedures and sanitary methods, I can’t think of a single reason Singer’s values would not permit a “professionally” operated abortion/infanticide abattoir. And that should tell us all we need to know about Peter Singer’s values.
If you want details, hit the above link.
January 21st, 2011 | 3:39 pm
Singer has no principled objection to infanticide; hence he can have no principled objection to these acts of infanticide. This is hardly cause for ‘gotcha!’ gloating–it’s obvious. The thing to note, however, is that it doesn’t follow that Singer can or would have no objections to what happened at this clinic, as obviously there are ample grounds for someone holding to his brand of utilitarianism to be appalled. So I’m not sure what the point here is.
January 21st, 2011 | 9:52 pm
If there’s nothing wrong with extinguishing human rights, then there’s nothing wrong with extinguishing human rights.
Atheists like to pretend that it’s okay to extinguish human rights, except when the humans being extinguished are valuable.
The question of which humans are valuable, of course, is the point where the argument starts having problems.
January 22nd, 2011 | 8:16 am
One thing to say about Singer is that he is morally more consistent than most pro-choice advocates. The latter think it OK to abort a baby up to X weeks (including up to birth) but recognize it as murder if the baby happens to be born before it is killed. Singer’s position makes much more sense, logically speaking.
He’s also more consistent than people who believe it’s OK to abort up to a certain amount of time of gestation, but not right to do it later. This includes some Church leaders who express moral indignation at late-term or partial-birth abortions, but fall silent on abortion of younger children.
Peter Singer can teach us something valuable–how the logic must work.
Once a person is conceived, he or she is a separate human being, like all of us. Needing time love and protection to develop fully. With an inalienable right to life.
January 22nd, 2011 | 1:06 pm
Argumentation should to be distinguished from expressions of shock, appeals to emotion, and displays of indignation. Peter Singer at least gives us argumentation. All too often this can’t be said of his critics.
January 22nd, 2011 | 4:59 pm
From what I have seen of the reporting on this place, what the media finds “shocking” is not what went on there, but just that it wasn’t very clean. I assume if the place were clean, there would be no objection.
January 22nd, 2011 | 5:04 pm
Dear C. Ehrlich: There have been numerous logical responses to Singer’s arguments. Do we have to go through them all every time we discuss him, or where his principles lead?
Dear Tristian: You wrote, “obviously there are ample grounds for someone holding to his brand of utilitarianism to be appalled.” But Wesley Smith is pointing out, from Singer’s own words, that he doesn’t think so. Based on Singer’s preference-utilitarianism, what do you think are the “ample grounds” for him to be appalled?
January 23rd, 2011 | 12:19 am
While the abortion debate is well known for its expressions of shock, appeals to emotion, and displays of indignation, fair-minded argumentation is a lot harder to come by. So yes, while Wesley Smith’s contribution to all this might have been expected, it’s still disappointing.
January 23rd, 2011 | 11:13 am
Craig, the clinic was filthy, run by incompetent and unqualified people (there was a teenager administering drugs), it harmed (and in one case killed) the people it served, and there are very good grounds to believe people went there out of desperation rather than by considered choice. Of course it was also doing all manner of illegal things.
January 23rd, 2011 | 4:17 pm
Dear Tristian: I refer back to my previous post: “From what I have seen of the reporting on this place, what the media finds “shocking” is not what went on there, but just that it wasn’t very clean. I assume if the place were clean, there would be no objection.”
I agree with you that the clinic appeared to be horrifying. Apparently, however, we disagree that abortion itself is horrifying–even if spotless.
For example, when you wrote “it harmed (and in one case killed) the people it served,” I immediately thought, “No, it killed many, many, many people.” Is Alasdair MacIntyre right, and we are simply talking past each other?
January 23rd, 2011 | 6:25 pm
No, we’re not talking past on another. I cited the death of the woman because it’s a death of a person by anyone’s standards, something Singer could condemn as readily as anyone, which was the point of my post. Obviously he doesn’t see the death of the babies (born and otherwise) as equally serious, but that’s not the same as condoning what was done there.
January 24th, 2011 | 8:32 am
Dear Tristian: Thank you for clarifying. I agree with you that Peter Singer would think that killing a mentally and physically normal adult human is wrong, under most circumstances.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact