Infanticide and bestiality advocate given Australia’s highest civic award


#1

From LifeSiteNews:

CANBERRA, Australia, June 14, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Notorious infanticide and bestiality-promoting ‘ethicist’ Peter Singer was made a Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) this week, sparking strong criticism by pro-life advocates, ethicists, and columnists.

Singer was presented with the award, which is the greatest civic honour in Australia and given for “merit of the highest degree in service to Australia or humanity at large,” on Monday at the 2012 Queen’s Birthday honours. It was granted for his “eminent service to philosophy and bioethics as a leader of public debate and communicator of ideas in the areas of global poverty, animal welfare and the human condition.”

The professor explicitly rejects the notion of life as sacred, arguing that consciousness and ability to communicate are central features of the person and are what imparts value to a life. He has argued that the decision about whether a disabled person should live or die should be delegated to committees and groups who ‘speak for’ those unable to articulate their needs —the silent, unborn children or the unconscious person in a hospital bed.

Singer is also an advocate of ‘personhood’ rights for animals and is a leading supporter of animal liberation.

When I saw this I was immediately reminded of how pro-abortion activist Dr. Henry Morgentaler was awarded the Order of Canada in July 2008. :mad:


#2

Peter Singer had defended infanticide, but I don't believe he ever advocated bestiality. The latter charge, I think, stems from a misreading of an essay published at Nerve.com (possibly in 2001) which was titled Heavy Petting. However, in the essay he doesn't advocate bestiality so much as not reject it.

utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

In 2006, while a guest on The Colbert Report, the host asks Singer about his feelings about sex with animals. Singer seems slightly miffed, and responds: "No I am not in favor of people having sex with animals. I think sex with humans would be more fun."

colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/79412/december-11-2006/peter-singer

(the question comes near the end of the interview, roughly at the 5:55 mark)

As for his being named a Companion of the Order of Australia, it seems a controversial choice. Certainly he is (in)famous. Have any other controversial persons been awarded this honor?


#3

Bestiality?:confused:


#4

[quote="Dale_M, post:2, topic:288029"]
Peter Singer had defended infanticide, but I don't believe he ever advocated bestiality. The latter charge, I think, stems from a misreading of an essay published at Nerve.com (possibly in 2001) which was titled Heavy Petting. However, in the essay he doesn't advocate bestiality so much as not reject it.

utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

In 2006, while a guest on The Colbert Report, the host asks Singer about his feelings about sex with animals. Singer seems slightly miffed, and responds: "No I am not in favor of people having sex with animals. I think sex with humans would be more fun."

colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/79412/december-11-2006/peter-singer

(the question comes near the end of the interview, roughly at the 5:55 mark)

As for his being named a Companion of the Order of Australia, it seems a controversial choice. Certainly he is (in)famous. Have any other controversial persons been awarded this honor?

[/quote]

Thanks for clarifying things Dale.


#5

More calumny from the usual source.


#6

LifeSiteNews is a reputable source.


#7

I agree. It certainly has a reputation. For calumny and distortion.


#8

[quote="Hokomai, post:7, topic:288029"]
I agree. It certainly has a reputation. For calumny and distortion.

[/quote]

Evidence?


#9

[quote="_Abyssinia, post:8, topic:288029"]
Evidence?

[/quote]

Read this thread.


#10

[quote="Hokomai, post:9, topic:288029"]
Read this thread.

[/quote]

You claimed that LifeSiteNews has made distortions and calumny, if you are going to make a claim like that you need to back it up with evidence.

You mean LifeSiteNews saying Peter Singer is an advocate of bestiality? Peter Singer may deny that he he is an advocate of bestiality, but I read some of the article linked in the LifeSiteNews article (warning: graphic), and he sounds like he is defending it as a reality in the world. He certainly does not dismiss it as an evil.


#11

[quote="_Abyssinia, post:10, topic:288029"]
You claimed that LifeSiteNews has made distortions and calumny, if you are going to make a claim like that you need to back it up with evidence.

You mean LifeSiteNews saying Peter Singer is an advocate of bestiality? Peter Singer may deny that he he is an advocate of bestiality, but I read some of the article linked in the LifeSiteNews article (warning: graphic), and he sounds like he is defending it as a reality in the world. He certainly does not dismiss it as an evil.

[/quote]

There is a difference between "certainly not dismissing something as an evil" and advocating it. I do not dismiss the Catholic Church's beliefs about God as evil, but I defend them as a reality in the world, and certainly do not advocate them.

This article is calumny, since is makes false and detrimental claims about a person, and achieves this by twisting and distorting his words. The Catholic Church has teaching, with which I agree, on the evil of calumny, to which it is no less opposed than it is opposed to bestiality, and possibly more opposed. Why do you attack the one and not the other?


#12

[quote="Dale_M, post:2, topic:288029"]
Peter Singer had defended infanticide, but I don't believe he ever advocated bestiality. The latter charge, I think, stems from a misreading of an essay published at Nerve.com (possibly in 2001) which was titled Heavy Petting. However, in the essay he doesn't advocate bestiality so much as not reject it.

utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm

In 2006, while a guest on The Colbert Report, the host asks Singer about his feelings about sex with animals. Singer seems slightly miffed, and responds: "No I am not in favor of people having sex with animals. I think sex with humans would be more fun."

colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/79412/december-11-2006/peter-singer

(the question comes near the end of the interview, roughly at the 5:55 mark)

As for his being named a Companion of the Order of Australia, it seems a controversial choice. Certainly he is (in)famous. Have any other controversial persons been awarded this honor?

[/quote]

Peter Singer is a monster of a human being. He doesn't deserve to be buried with human beings. His papers on ethics are nauseating, if you are a God loving Christian.

utilitarian.net/singer/by/2001----.htm


#13

[quote="Hokomai, post:11, topic:288029"]
There is a difference between "certainly not dismissing something as an evil" and advocating it. I do not dismiss the Catholic Church's beliefs about God as evil, but I defend them as a reality in the world, and certainly do not advocate them.

This article is calumny, since is makes false and detrimental claims about a person, and achieves this by twisting and distorting his words. The Catholic Church has teaching, with which I agree, on the evil of calumny, to which it is no less opposed than it is opposed to bestiality, and possibly more opposed. Why do you attack the one and not the other?

[/quote]

I think 'bestiality defender' would of probably a better description of Peter Singer's writings, but I understand how his words can be seen as advocation. He is certainly an advocate for more discussion about bestiality, he said in a 2001 review that 'sex with animals does not always involve cruelty' and that 'mutually satisfying activities' may occur between humans and animals. That can be seen as advocation.

Have you got any samples of distortion from LifeSiteNews?


#14

I’m pro-life and I’ve noticed bias in Lifesite’s reporting.

Agreeing with the pro-life arguments that Lifesite supports, and saying that biased reporting practices are acceptable are two different kettles of fish.

If you are going to win an argument it has to be with a clear argument, and if you are backing it up with evidence you don’t want the evidence being muddied or voided by poor reporting practices.

Just ask a lawyer for the police who has had their case thrown out of court, even when the defendant was guilty.


#15

[quote="triumphguy, post:14, topic:288029"]
I'm pro-life and I've noticed bias in Lifesite's reporting.

Agreeing with the bias, and saying that biased reporting practices are acceptable are two different kettles of fish.

If you are going to win an argument it has to be with a clear argument, and if you are backing it up with evidence you don't want the evidence being muddied or voided by poor reporting practices.

[/quote]

I'd be happy to post essays directly from Peter Singer's Princeton University website if that is "more objective". It doesn't lessen that outrageousness of what he rights.


#16

I’m not doubting the story at all.


#17

Way to back up your assertion.

Just what exactly do you dispute? That Peter Singer was made a Companion of the Order of Australia? That he does not promote infanticide? Or do you just not like the exposure and respond with ad hominem out of desperation?


#18

I don’t think you need to be a Christian to be nauseated. I think any human with a sense of ethics (even his fellow ethicists) are alarmed.

But he is the shining example of radical atheism run amok.

Singer writes, “My colleague Helga Kuhse and I suggest that a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to life as others.” Singer argues that even pigs, chickens, and fish have more signs of consciousness and rationality – and, consequently, a greater claim to rights – than do fetuses, newborn infants, and people with mental disabilities. “Rats are indisputably more aware of their surroundings, and more able to respond in purposeful and complex ways to things they like or dislike, than a fetus at 10- or even 32-weeks gestation. … The calf, the pig, and the much-derided chicken come out well ahead of the fetus at any stage of pregnancy.”

catholiceducation.org/articles/medical_ethics/me0132.htm


#19

I think this should be the focus of the thread. He is one of eight Australians this year to be named Companions of the Order of Australia. But he is by far the most controversial.

Professor Singer says he is delighted to be recognised on the Queen’s Birthday honours list and embraces the controversy his views generate.

He says it has been the philosopher’s role since Socrates to force people to challenge their own assumptions that they have taken for granted.

“There will be people in the community who are opposed to [my ideas], but I think that what this shows is that you don’t just have to be a conformist in order to get honoured,” he said.

abc.net.au/news/2012-06-11/queens-birthday-honours-revealed-2012/4057484/?site=newcastle


#20

[quote="triumphguy, post:16, topic:288029"]
I'm not doubting the story at all.

[/quote]

I don't think you are. I was just agreeing with you on the use of primary sources.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.