stevestory
Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Genius Joel writes:
| Quote | The Inevitable Conclusion
It is no secret that Peter Singer of Princeton has some radical views. One of these views is that it is moral to kill babies once outside of the womb: | Quote | “Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman’s right to have an abortion,” Singer, a professor of bioethics, said in a question and answer article in The Independent, a British newspaper. “One point on which I agree with opponents of abortion is that, from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the fetus and the newborn baby.”
Singer’s position is the “logical extension of the culture of death,” LifeSiteNews.com, a pro-life news agency, asserted. He contends there is no inherent dignity in man and no sanctity of human life. Singer rejects the idea that man was created in the image and likeness of God, the site noted, and therefore believes man deserves no special treatment.
|
Now, to clarify this and be fair to Singer, he isn’t teaching killing babies at will (at least not yet). Instead, if the baby could cause harm to himself, lack the dignity of life (such as disabled), or could bring harm to the family then it is justifiable to kill the newborn.
A lot of Christians are “pro-choice” or support naturalistic methods in science. However, thanks to Singer, we see the inevitable conclusion. We can sit in our science classes and learn naturalism and think, “Well what is so bad about this? It is just someone’s opinion” but then fail to see the broader impacts of this belief. Singer is a perfect example. When we remove any significance of man, especially that he is in the image of God, we remove any reason for preventing murder.
Under Singer’s view, it is more humane to kill a baby than to let that same baby go through life deformed. Of course, in our post-modern world we begin to lack any form of a definition of “deformed.” From this, we begin to lose any justification for preventing any murder.
However, do we now see the problem in allowing naturalism to be taught? Often I hear atheists argue that Singer’s view is radical, but then never explain how his view does not work or is inconsistent with naturalistic philosophy. If a Christian were to argue for the same thing it would be quite easy to show how he is radical and inconsistent with Christian philosophy. The challenge for naturalists is quite harder, and also explains why we see more and more coming over to Singer’s side.
This is the danger of naturalism in the public schools is that it allowed for the inevitable conclusion (death) of humans. |
Yeah, right. And more and more scientists question evolution.
Anyway, I'm an atheist, and I can't tell you how eager I am to listen to another fundy explain why I must be an immoral, murdering, raping, etc etc etc. I really never knew those things about myself. Fundies must be the smartest people in the world.
|
