Our "good friend" that we talk about here
all the time- Peter Singer has come
out with a new.. and this
is everything to you know he's... He's the
head a Bioethics at Princeton
University, which if you think about it,
is
unimaginable that
a moral degenerate like this person could be head of Bioethics...
(Johnny mutters something we can't understand)
Listen to this... he recently
said
in an op-ed piece
in a journal called The Scotsman. This was actually in Australia-
he was there speaking.
uh...
"The fallacy in the anti-abortion argument
lies in the shift
from the scientifically accurate claim
that the fetus is a living
individual of the species homo-sapiens,
to the ethical claim that the fetuses- therefore has the same
right-to-life is any other human being.
Membership of the species homo sapiens
is not enough to confirm our right to
life."
And I'll skip this middle part. It's not
really
relevant to this. But then he
goes on and says: "We have no obligation to
allow every being with the potential to
become a rational being,
to realize that potential.
If it comes to a clash between the
supposed interest of potentially
rational but not yet conscious
human beings, and the vital interest of
actually rationally women- we should give
preference to the woman every time.
This is amazing...
This is astonishing- because this goes
right along with his statement before
that even a newborn doesn't fit the criteria
for possessing the right to life. That
the parents should have a year-or-so to make
up their mind; and if they decide
they don't want this baby, they should have it killed.
This is horrible! You know
the people- they're not just pro-abortion, these people are pro-death. 
Death to the 10th degree.
This is infanticide. I mean, there is hardly any way to put it how horrible
things are getting. 
Even in Canada they've reached
a point where you've got to be
born just to be even considered a human being. And for Peter Sanger to come out with something like
this- oh you've got to have some real
conscious thoughts...Well it's the ultimate
selfishness. Well..you know this baby
doesn't fit my life, you know he cried too much,
so let's have him killed. Because it bothers me!
It doesn't matter that it's a baby,  it's just that this human being
doesn't meet my criteria. 
I can show you people that are in their
30s that i don't think have rational 
thoughts.
This is eugenics. This is just eugenics right here in modern 
America. This is devaluing life and
you know
if we just keep moving that bar there's no telling where we're going to go. It's that slippery slope and I think
we're way down it. We have slid down. You're exactly right Leroy. It's eugenics- because
what this says is, 
the value of this human life
is determined by the value it
has
to all the other human beings
who were making the determination
whether he should live or die.
That's what it says.
And so... Once you've seen that kind of
power to the government,
you've got nothing left.
i mean you... your... If the government has
the right to say this person does not
have value, and this person does-
they're both human beings- we can see
that.
They're both living human beings of the
species homo sapiens
uh... The government's already doing that.
His rational here..this man..again the 
head of Bioethics
at Princeton University, which was
founded as a christian institution.
"The fallacy in this argument is that
because it's human, it therefore
possesses the right-to-life."  That's what
he says here.
Membership alone does not qualify...
Unbelievable!
