Welcome to Gaia! ::

In a recent issue of Christian Research Journal, there was an article title "Not Quite Dead Yet." It's just a small editiorial about the future of science and how future advancements will affect views on abortion and people in vegitative states. One of the quotes in the article really caught my atttention (and not in a good way).

From Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University (his predicition):


The first problem I saw with this quote was the assumption that only people with religious values see life as sacrosanct from conception to death. This guild is proof enough a person with any or even no religious beliefs can see life as sacrosanct. The idea that only religious fundamentalists will be left believing life is sacrosanct is ignorant at best.

He also asserts that as science reveals that any human cell has potential to become a human being, it will cause any argument that embryos are unique and of value to crumble. The problem with that is that right now every egg in a woman's body has the potential to become a human being and yet there are still arguments over whether embryos are valuable human life or not. Expanding the pool of potential human beings doesn't simplify the debate; it makes it more complicated.

The third assumption he makes is that science will tell him what he wants it to tell him. Besides the ignorance of believeing you already know the outcome of future scientific advancements, there's already a prime and current example of exactly the oppposite of his predicition: the pro-choice pioneer of the 3-D and 4-D ultrasound scanning techology Stuart Campbell. Through this particular medical advancement, he has come to believe that 24 week abortions are just wrong. With better technology, he- and everyone else- has come to realize that fetal development happens far faster than they used to believe it did, which led him to start finding fault with abortions at 24 weeks. That's already heading in the opposite direction of Singer's prediction.

All in all, I found Singer's prediction to be arrogant and ignorant (in case I hadn't made that clear already wink ), and I wanted to, first, share this with ya'll since it was an interesting read and, second, see what ya'll had to say about it.

I've scanned in the article large enough to read:
Page 1
Page 2

(By the way, while it is from a Christian magazine, it does not talk about the Christian doctrines. In fact, it talks about being able to support your beliefs with more than religious arguments.)

Actually, I think both links show page 1.

To paraphrase PenguinSpoon, I thought we were supposed to be the murderous ones? Can't they stop stealing our job?

I heard something like 5 years. If Peter Singer is a champion of ethics, Kevin Federline belongs in the Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame. If he ever gets sick, I'm going to suggest he avoid being a hypocrite and eat a bullet.

That's just freaking sick. It explains a lot about his views though.

I'll be seconding that suggestion.

Singer is an idiot. I don't know why they call him an ethical leader. He supports beastiality of all things.

However, the decreasing value in the sanctity of life is a major problem in our world's society today. And... as of right now I only see it getting worse.

For example, now porno's easy to get. Great, just what every woman wants, to be looked at as a bag of meat. rolleyes People just see each other as eye-candy and all they care about is sensual pleasure. Why should they care for others? They're perfectly 'happy' themselves. And if not, well, suicide's always an option. After all, we know constant self-indulgence brings self-fufillment and happiness.

Look at our so-called 'role models'. Their lives really and truly suck. They have all that money and can do just about whatever they want. However, they don't have happy lives nor families, and struggle with disorders including alcohol and drug addiction. And many of the children in our society want to grow up to be just like those people.



In response to the previous comment, no. Many people think that if a person isn't 'concious' or 'self-aware' then they are technically not a person and it's okay to kill them. With this logic, it's perfectly fine to kill people who are in comas, toddlers, mentally disadvantaged, and even people who are sleeping. They claim that they are not aware of themselves and others. Heck, most of the people in America aren't aware of themselves and others. How else do they end up screwing up their lives so badly when they're supposedly 'educated', 'informed', and 'rational'?

This kind of reminds me of a book I've read, it was about a tribe of cavemen, and a part of their ways was to leave someone behind to die if they could not take care of themselves. To think that societty is re-gressing back to the cavemen days. It saddens me.