I don’t know if I can find a quote that’s more wrong. (When you fail to see there is something special and wonderful about being human, you get nonsense like this.)


It’s as if this satanic ghoul gets off at the thought of killing disabled babies.

36 Comments on Ewe-Genics

  1. Singer himself has less of a sense of species preservation than pigs, cows, and chickens. Those animals will act to preserve each other in the face of a common threat. What do you suppose we can conclude about Singer from that?

  2. Peter Singer is 72 years old. He has lived past his usefulness and is basically a drain on Earth’s resources. He should let himself die to lessen the burden on the younger, more production population (at least using his philosophy as a guideline).

  3. Man kills chickens, pigs, and cows…. he also kills old ghoulish people who stop taking their meds.

    Ghoulish old people are a far greater threat to our societal stability than a baby with a club foot.

  4. Every way this shithead’s statement is extended, it is nonsense.
    –Man kills these cultivated animals to EAT them, not just for shits and giggles. So, he is suggesting killing babies to eat them?!
    –His intellectual arrogance is devoid of self-awareness; should he be clubbed to death for it?
    —The ‘doctrine of sanctity of life’ is specific to humans. Thou shall not kill (humans)! There is no Commandment to be vegan, in any cultural tradition.

    Bioethicist?! Yes, and Barky was the best orator in our times. Du du du du, di di di di di…

  5. So… playing devils advocate here…
    If an extremely retarded child is born, mother died during birth and is now a ward of the state. We must pay for that child for the rest of its life? Why? And if so, why won’t one of you “bleeding hearts” adopt this child? Too high a burden?

  6. On the flip side, at what point do we “give up” on criminals? If ever.
    Why not execute offenders who can never be reformed?

  7. Peter Singer has less self-awareness than a pig, cow or chicken. The doctrine of the sanctity of life has never prevented man from killing pigs, cows and chickens; so man can also kill Peter Singer. Good to know.

  8. We also eat chickens, pigs, and cows. He prolly wouldn’t mind eating some disabled children too.
    Tar, feathers, and a ride out of town would do this bastard good.

  9. One can remove the boy from Nazi-land but can’t remove the Nazi from him.

    The only reason Peter Singer is alive is because his Jewish Parents fled Austria in 1938. Otherwise the policy Singer preaches would have been been practiced on him.

  10. So SRG, will you volunteer to slit that baby’s throat? Shoot in the head? Inject poison? Smash against a wall? Cook in the the oven? Or in today’s enlightened fashion, deny nourishment as the baby slowly starves/dehydrates to death?

  11. Well, I guess ole Pete has one solution to the problems at the U S Mexican border. Let’s just call it “retro-active abortion” and off the illegals.

  12. Why do you go straight to animalistic tendencies?
    Inject to stop the heart.
    I’m surprised you didn’t suggest sticking it in the freezer as is standard, common practice for dog or cat breeders.
    And yes, I would volunteer for that detail, at least I know it will be done in a respectful way.

  13. …Democrats have no self-awareness. Just look at how Hillary dresses or how Pelosi speaks. Or how Singer believes there’s no problem with saying something THIS evil out loud.

    Does that mean its OK to kill them?

    Examine your own words carefully before answering, professor…

  14. “Or in today’s enlightened fashion, deny nourishment as the baby slowly starves/dehydrates to death?”

    We’ve already been there, @Major Mal Function..

    …when he was just a state senator, Obama arose from merely voting ‘present” long enough to force nurses to abandon viable babies who survived their abortions. Sounds kind of like what what you said.

    Didn’t hurt Obama’s career one bit…

    “Jill Stanek was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois in 1999 when she discovered that babies born alive after failed abortions purposely were being left to die in the “soiled utility room,” which, says Stanek, is a room where biohazard materials and soiled linens are disposed of.

    “That’s where nursing staff took these babies and left them to die.””


  15. My middle daughter is missing 2/3 of the right hemisphere of her brain. Sturge Weber Syndrome. Not real great at math but still sporting a 3.5 GPA. Weaker but functional on the left side of her body, can’t wink with her left eye. A heart as big as the Smokeys.

    Define disabled.

    If this 4uc×er came for my daughter, I’d readily kill him with my bare hands. No jury would convict.

  16. “If this 4uc×er came for my daughter, I’d readily kill him with my bare hands. No jury would convict.”

    …given that his litmus test is self-awareness, and that he displays NONE by saying that out loud to people like YOU and ME, @Hoo Hoo Nay Nay, I don’t see how a jury COULD convict based on what Mr. “ethics” own writings…

    …you’re a nurse. This could make you pretty good at that “bare hand” thing. And you’d get no argument from ME if you wanted it to hurt a bit more than absolutely necessary. After all, he’s no more than a pig, just ask him…

  17. @Hoo Hoo Nay Nay: I’d willing help you; with a Burnz-O-Matic torch, scalpel, bone saw, and ligatures. He would literally cease to function by inches.

  18. “with a Burnz-O-Matic torch, scalpel, bone saw, and ligatures.”

    …that’s not “bare handed”, @odin, but I like the way you think…

  19. I’ve said here dozens of times the last 4 years – THE IVY LEAGUE PRODUCES GREAT THINKERS AND GOOD MEN! Nothing has changed in the last 100 years!

    Don is as my grandmother said 70 years ago “The exception that proves the rule>”!

  20. Sum Random Guy,
    I See that there are instances where we do not understand the value that a human life brings into this world, such as in your scenario. I would posit the idea that this human life comes into the world for us to be able to show our own humanity in caring for the child. It is not about what the child receives, or the cost of that care, but what we gain by being caring others when there is nothing personally to gain. Sort of basic morality.

    Often in today’s society we look at the cost and what we can gain, but maybe it is about what we can give and what we gain in that very act of giving or caring. What shows love when there is nothing else to do.

    I may not be articulate enough to get my point across well, but deep in my soul, I believe that life is – above all else – precious.

  21. @ Sum Random Guy –
    You say it can occasionally be good that those poor creatures sometimes get killed off.

    BUT, the question always falls to – Who gets to decide?

    If someone, or even a group of someone’s decide that YOUR life isn’t all that great, who are you to argue the point?

    You can point to disabled, or the poor, or even the petty criminal that in YOUR opinion doesn’t benefit this world. And yet there may very well be some who look at you and ask “What have you done for me?”

    What could you say?

    THIS is the slope that leads into the pit from which there is no escape.
    Anyone who thinks that mankind is incapable of such evil has NOT been paying attention. We have examples of what mankind is capable of doing to their fellow man – even to the point where they no longer require the “handicap” excuse.

    Have you seen the twentieth century? Armenian Genocide anyone? Or just about any century you wish to see,

    “What you do to the least of these, you do to Me”

    MSG Grumpy

    PS: yes I have adopted and thank the Lord every day for the Blessing in my life of such a wonderful life.

    I pray that someday your life can be Blessed.


Comments are closed.