Menu Bar
Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
These clips are taken from the 2006 Tony Kaye documentary "Lake of Fire" that graphically depicts the contemporary abortion debate in the United States.
Noam Chomsky is professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and is one of the fathers of modern linguistics. Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, an anarchist, and libertarian socialist.
Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular utilitarian perspective.
Noam Chomsky is professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and is one of the fathers of modern linguistics. Since the 1960s, he has become known more widely as a political dissident, an anarchist, and libertarian socialist.
Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, and laureate professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE), University of Melbourne. He specializes in applied ethics, approaching ethical issues from a secular utilitarian perspective.
Jun 17, 2009 5:04 AM
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Peter Singer believes that an infant child, post-natal, within the first few months of life can be euthanized as a choice by the parent because it does not have cognitive ability greater than that of a fetus, and cannot establish memory over time.
By: poonhound
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
That's like saying it's okay to shoot someone in the back of the head, and then ask if they want to live or not. He's justifying killing before there is a chance to protest.
It amazes me how intelligent people can make such dumb remarks. Being book smart doesn't mean a person automatically makes good decisions. I started laughing during the part where abortion is connected to washing one's hands.
It amazes me how intelligent people can make such dumb remarks. Being book smart doesn't mean a person automatically makes good decisions. I started laughing during the part where abortion is connected to washing one's hands.
By: digitalprime
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Actually, it isn't. There's a difference between "doesn't know they're about to die" and "wants to go on living." You think we're not giving a fetus a chance to protest? Would you like them to fill out a consent form? How about cows and chickens too? Ah, that's another debate.
If you wanted to pay attention to the washing hands bit, you would have noticed that Noam was creating a continuum; He was placing abortion between washing one's hands and killing a three year old child and then leaving it up to discussion where abortion fell.
The seemingly ridiculous statement by poonhound is only so because people would have more moral difficulty killing an actual baby that can smile at you. Of course, it would probably be easier to kill once they've heard it cry eight hours out of ten from 10pm to 8am.
If you wanted to pay attention to the washing hands bit, you would have noticed that Noam was creating a continuum; He was placing abortion between washing one's hands and killing a three year old child and then leaving it up to discussion where abortion fell.
The seemingly ridiculous statement by poonhound is only so because people would have more moral difficulty killing an actual baby that can smile at you. Of course, it would probably be easier to kill once they've heard it cry eight hours out of ten from 10pm to 8am.
By: Faffy
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
There's a difference between "doesn't know they're about to die" and "wants to go on living".
Exactly why I said shoot someone in the back of the head. Is it okay to kill someone if they are unaware? That's the argument towards a fetus. If a fetus or baby shouldn't be considered alive because they are unaware, does that give us freedom to do whatever with them? Can a mother sexually molest them? Can she put it in the microwave just for fun? Can we kill 'em and stuff 'em and use them as children's dolls? It's a bit disturbing, the total disregard for life.
I'm sorry, there is NO continuum between washing your hands and a child. Dead skins cells that flake off are of a completely different nature than cells that replicate and form life.
Exactly why I said shoot someone in the back of the head. Is it okay to kill someone if they are unaware? That's the argument towards a fetus. If a fetus or baby shouldn't be considered alive because they are unaware, does that give us freedom to do whatever with them? Can a mother sexually molest them? Can she put it in the microwave just for fun? Can we kill 'em and stuff 'em and use them as children's dolls? It's a bit disturbing, the total disregard for life.
I'm sorry, there is NO continuum between washing your hands and a child. Dead skins cells that flake off are of a completely different nature than cells that replicate and form life.
By: digitalprime
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
You're talking about killing someone with an understanding of life and death, a sentient being, versus a fetus, which is about as self aware as a sunflower.
The rest of that paragraph is going way off the deep end and making arguments no one suggested in the first place.
You kill live cells every time you wash your hands as well. Every time you cap your hands you kill cells. Think carefully about what is applause worthy.
The rest of that paragraph is going way off the deep end and making arguments no one suggested in the first place.
You kill live cells every time you wash your hands as well. Every time you cap your hands you kill cells. Think carefully about what is applause worthy.
By: Faffy
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
You don't understand the "washing hands" example. When you wash your hands, you are wiping off cells that future generations, theoretically, could use to create sentient life (they contain all the DNA necessary). It's the masturbation example- Every sperm is a potential human being.
I think it would elevate the discussion if people would avoid doing what you did in your second paragraph. Nobody here or in the clip suggested, implicitly or explicitly, that it was OK to molest children, put them in microwaves, or murder them and use them as dolls. It's really in your best interest not to do that- you only alienate your opposition when you demonize them.
I think it would elevate the discussion if people would avoid doing what you did in your second paragraph. Nobody here or in the clip suggested, implicitly or explicitly, that it was OK to molest children, put them in microwaves, or murder them and use them as dolls. It's really in your best interest not to do that- you only alienate your opposition when you demonize them.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
I think Peter Singer is wrong about lots and lots of things, including his stance on abortion and euthanasia, but poonhound is mistaken. Quoth Singer:
"I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill [a normally functioning adult] than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do." -http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html
Killing a newborn isn't wrong because it violates the baby's desires- the baby has no desires that involve the future. It is wrong because it violates the desires and preferences of anyone who cares for the baby.
He does, however, suggest that it's justifiable to euthanize a baby that has a "serious disability." THAT is what you should be criticizing.
C'mon poonhound, you can do better than that. Singer doesn't even believe in killing animals. His belief system is far more complex and robust than you're letting on.
"I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill [a normally functioning adult] than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do." -http://www.princeton.edu/~psinger/faq.html
Killing a newborn isn't wrong because it violates the baby's desires- the baby has no desires that involve the future. It is wrong because it violates the desires and preferences of anyone who cares for the baby.
He does, however, suggest that it's justifiable to euthanize a baby that has a "serious disability." THAT is what you should be criticizing.
C'mon poonhound, you can do better than that. Singer doesn't even believe in killing animals. His belief system is far more complex and robust than you're letting on.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
people have difficulty assigning intrinsic moral value to things. Does a human organism have intrinsic value simply because its human? or must it display function according to some arbitrary standard?
Singer and Chomsky fall into the latter group, and interestingly, they are just as absolutist as pro-lifers when it comes to setting the standard of "awareness" or whatever, to define human value. What stone is that standard carved into and what mountain did they carry it down from?
Science can only tell us what an individual human organsim is - the concieved, diploid cell that becomes an embryo. It cannot assign moral value. We must do that. Chomsky and Singer are no more intellectual or sophisticated when selecting a process to define that standard than pro-lifers.
Unfortunately in America, we are not allowed to decide democratically because unelected judges defined the standard as "viable outside the womb albeit with medical attention" and forced it upon the rest of us. Note that this standard is different than Singer's or Chomsky's.
Singer and Chomsky fall into the latter group, and interestingly, they are just as absolutist as pro-lifers when it comes to setting the standard of "awareness" or whatever, to define human value. What stone is that standard carved into and what mountain did they carry it down from?
Science can only tell us what an individual human organsim is - the concieved, diploid cell that becomes an embryo. It cannot assign moral value. We must do that. Chomsky and Singer are no more intellectual or sophisticated when selecting a process to define that standard than pro-lifers.
Unfortunately in America, we are not allowed to decide democratically because unelected judges defined the standard as "viable outside the womb albeit with medical attention" and forced it upon the rest of us. Note that this standard is different than Singer's or Chomsky's.
By: poonhound
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
If you assign moral value to something, that moral value is, by definition, extrinsic. You can't assign intrinsic value. You can assign moral value and pretend it's intrinsic, but it's not.
It doesn't seem like you've spent any time at all reading into the arguments you're trying to criticize. I can't speak for Chomsky, but Singer's argument for the point at which personhood begins is certainly more robust than the stereotypicial religious pro-life argument.
Judicial law-making occurs all the time. It's necessary. If the judges had said that life begins at conception, that would still be what is often called "judicial activism." You can't avoid this: every time an appellate court is presented with a novel issue, they have to create law in order to resolve the issue. It's built into the system. People should really stop using terms like "judicial activism" pejoratively.
I eagerly anticipate the day you move beyond making sweeping generalizations and ad hominems, and start making real arguments.
It doesn't seem like you've spent any time at all reading into the arguments you're trying to criticize. I can't speak for Chomsky, but Singer's argument for the point at which personhood begins is certainly more robust than the stereotypicial religious pro-life argument.
Judicial law-making occurs all the time. It's necessary. If the judges had said that life begins at conception, that would still be what is often called "judicial activism." You can't avoid this: every time an appellate court is presented with a novel issue, they have to create law in order to resolve the issue. It's built into the system. People should really stop using terms like "judicial activism" pejoratively.
I eagerly anticipate the day you move beyond making sweeping generalizations and ad hominems, and start making real arguments.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Judges could say that they don't have the constitutional authority to designate the value of human life, and hand the issue over to the legislature, who are accountable to the people who elect them. This also happens all the time, but for some reason, not in the case of abortion.
and by "intrinsic moral value", I mean that it has value just because it is intrinsically human, not because it displays function, regardless of who is assigning what.
I find the argument that human organisms have moral value simply because they are human to be just as robust as any other standard, whether it is Singer's or the SCOTUS, (which are very different). Unfortunately Singer's beliefs or the pro-lifer's are not allowed to be represented in our democratic society.
and by "intrinsic moral value", I mean that it has value just because it is intrinsically human, not because it displays function, regardless of who is assigning what.
I find the argument that human organisms have moral value simply because they are human to be just as robust as any other standard, whether it is Singer's or the SCOTUS, (which are very different). Unfortunately Singer's beliefs or the pro-lifer's are not allowed to be represented in our democratic society.
By: poonhound
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Judges DO have the authority to designate the value of human life. They do it all the time, in both criminal and civil law. They can determine how long someone must be punished for murder, and they may determine how much someone can recover in a wrongful death suit. I think you mean that they don't have the constitutional authority to designate what is and what is not a human, or when a human life begins.
I still don't understand what you mean by "intrinsic moral value," given the context in which it was originally used. Assuming you simply meant "human beings are intrinsically valuable, by virtue of being human beings," you're missing the point (what is a human?), and you're not telling us anything of particular value. If function doesn't matter, is a corpse a human being? What if someone is in a persistent vegetative state- are they human? If all human beings are intrinsically valuable, is it ever justifiable to kill? To go to war? What if someone is born with a different number of chromosomes- are they human? If human beings are valuable, ought we all just start fucking in order to create the most amount of value?
"Human organisms have moral value simply because they are human" isn't an argument, it's an assertion. You start with your desired conclusion: Singer starts with something more basic.
I don't know what you mean by "represented in our democratic society." They represent themselves well enough. If you mean their views aren't being represented in the law, tough titties. Someone is going to disagree with the law, it just happens to be the pro-lifers on this issue.
I still don't understand what you mean by "intrinsic moral value," given the context in which it was originally used. Assuming you simply meant "human beings are intrinsically valuable, by virtue of being human beings," you're missing the point (what is a human?), and you're not telling us anything of particular value. If function doesn't matter, is a corpse a human being? What if someone is in a persistent vegetative state- are they human? If all human beings are intrinsically valuable, is it ever justifiable to kill? To go to war? What if someone is born with a different number of chromosomes- are they human? If human beings are valuable, ought we all just start fucking in order to create the most amount of value?
"Human organisms have moral value simply because they are human" isn't an argument, it's an assertion. You start with your desired conclusion: Singer starts with something more basic.
I don't know what you mean by "represented in our democratic society." They represent themselves well enough. If you mean their views aren't being represented in the law, tough titties. Someone is going to disagree with the law, it just happens to be the pro-lifers on this issue.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Oh my goodness this post ticked me off! Let me count the ways....
Peter Singer's argument that abortion is available to wealthy women and not poor women is not relevant. So is Crack or Heroin, but does that make it right? No. Rich people have the means to cover unethical decisions, that's a given.
Regarding Chomsky's assertion that "if they really cared about children, they'd focus on other things" and mentions third world illness from unsafe drinking water, what is he really saying? Is he suggesting that only the situation with the greatest impact should be focused on? That's wrong as well. ALL of these conditions should be focused on, and different organizations focus on different projects. The Gates foundation is working hard to vaccinate kids in the third world and to eradicate malaria. It's reasonable to focus on more than one problem at a time, so this goofy argument doesn't hold water.
He talks about the US's miserly foreign aid contributions, "by quite a large margin" in his words. It appears true that as a % of GDP, the US "GOVERNMENT" gives less than others (emphasis mine). Look here...
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance
Scroll down to the table labed, "Source: OECD Development Statistics Online), and look at tabs 2 and 3. The US gives .18 % of GDP, but dollar wise, this is vast - 25 Billion.
Anyway, this seems to totally ignore the faith based giving that comes out of the US. I tired to find some stats there, but had no luck with a quick search. I can only say that annectodaly, at my church, we give far more than .12 % of our incomes.
Chomsky says, basically, don't debate about the abortion foes because they don't care about poor kids dieing in the third world. HOGWASH.
Abortion happens in our backyard. Well, not my backyard, but you know what I mean. It's prevalent in all cities in the US. It's reasonable to focus on the problems that affect you, your family and your community.
Later Singer suggest that maybe we should define life as those who can think and want to go on living, and so it's not wrong to kill a fetus because it cannot think and has no concept of life. Holy crap! Don't you see why us Christians (and Jews and Muslims) easily think of Hitler when we hear this kind of disdain for human life? Hitler didn't think that Homosexuals or those with mental illness should be left to life either. That went well.
Wow. These are two intelligent men with a great grasp of language and they're able to justify horrible things with words. I'd hate to mean them at a debate because I lack the ability to effectively use rhetoric, but wrong is wrong.
I don't hate Chomsky. I've heard some great talks by him in regards to the US involvement overseas, but he's totally wrong on this subject.
Peter Singer's argument that abortion is available to wealthy women and not poor women is not relevant. So is Crack or Heroin, but does that make it right? No. Rich people have the means to cover unethical decisions, that's a given.
Regarding Chomsky's assertion that "if they really cared about children, they'd focus on other things" and mentions third world illness from unsafe drinking water, what is he really saying? Is he suggesting that only the situation with the greatest impact should be focused on? That's wrong as well. ALL of these conditions should be focused on, and different organizations focus on different projects. The Gates foundation is working hard to vaccinate kids in the third world and to eradicate malaria. It's reasonable to focus on more than one problem at a time, so this goofy argument doesn't hold water.
He talks about the US's miserly foreign aid contributions, "by quite a large margin" in his words. It appears true that as a % of GDP, the US "GOVERNMENT" gives less than others (emphasis mine). Look here...
http://www.globalissues.org/article/35/us-and-foreign-aid-assistance
Scroll down to the table labed, "Source: OECD Development Statistics Online), and look at tabs 2 and 3. The US gives .18 % of GDP, but dollar wise, this is vast - 25 Billion.
Anyway, this seems to totally ignore the faith based giving that comes out of the US. I tired to find some stats there, but had no luck with a quick search. I can only say that annectodaly, at my church, we give far more than .12 % of our incomes.
Chomsky says, basically, don't debate about the abortion foes because they don't care about poor kids dieing in the third world. HOGWASH.
Abortion happens in our backyard. Well, not my backyard, but you know what I mean. It's prevalent in all cities in the US. It's reasonable to focus on the problems that affect you, your family and your community.
Later Singer suggest that maybe we should define life as those who can think and want to go on living, and so it's not wrong to kill a fetus because it cannot think and has no concept of life. Holy crap! Don't you see why us Christians (and Jews and Muslims) easily think of Hitler when we hear this kind of disdain for human life? Hitler didn't think that Homosexuals or those with mental illness should be left to life either. That went well.
Wow. These are two intelligent men with a great grasp of language and they're able to justify horrible things with words. I'd hate to mean them at a debate because I lack the ability to effectively use rhetoric, but wrong is wrong.
I don't hate Chomsky. I've heard some great talks by him in regards to the US involvement overseas, but he's totally wrong on this subject.
By: PalmBayChuck
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Chuck, would your position on the comments be any different if your religious views were not affecting your thoughts? Just a thought from this perspective.
I'm sure Jaxon loves these kinds of posts because it stirs up traffic. But that was not my intent. As a pro-choice supporter, I found the arguments to be of value.
Pro-abortionist does not exist. No one is suggesting that we all go out and perfomr as many fetusectomies as we can. Anti-choice DOES exist. And it's not only a problem for women, it is also a crime on humanity to want to subject them to the inevitable butchery that they will be exposed to by criminalizing the procedure.
The bottom line? I am in no position to judge unless the day comes that I procreate by passing a bowling ball through my urethra.
I'm sure Jaxon loves these kinds of posts because it stirs up traffic. But that was not my intent. As a pro-choice supporter, I found the arguments to be of value.
Pro-abortionist does not exist. No one is suggesting that we all go out and perfomr as many fetusectomies as we can. Anti-choice DOES exist. And it's not only a problem for women, it is also a crime on humanity to want to subject them to the inevitable butchery that they will be exposed to by criminalizing the procedure.
The bottom line? I am in no position to judge unless the day comes that I procreate by passing a bowling ball through my urethra.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
In all honesty, we ALL believe in pro-choice. The responsible among us just believe that there should be limitations on choice. A man shouldn't be allowed to rape any woman he CHOOSES. A person shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone they CHOOSE. An adult shouldn't be allowed to molest any child they CHOOSE. There has to be limits.
Also, the responsible among us recognize that bad choices exist. Additionally, there are those of us who believe a person should not escape the consequences of their bad decision. A woman should not be allowed to sleep around, and just kill her baby because she doesn't want that responsibility. She already made her CHOICE when she CHOSE to sleep around.
Most pro-choice tend to argue about women's health. Unfortunately, there are no criteria for abortion. Many people I speak with who are for abortion, do not support it being used as a form of birth control. I, personally, believe in self-sacrificing. If a woman choices her life over her baby's, I just find that to be cowardice. As for rape victims, my BEST FRIEND is a product of rape. When people try to argue about rape babies, I think of my friend and how he would not be here if his mother decided not to keep him.
I'm neither liberal or conservative, I one of those rare individuals capable of thinking for myself. I find it amazing that there are these ultra-liberal hippy girls that won't eat meat because it is murder. They won't wear any products made from animals such as leather or wool. They tie themselves to trees to prevent them from getting cut down, and cry when they do. Yet, they believe in abortion because of choice. That's pure hypocrisy.
Also, the responsible among us recognize that bad choices exist. Additionally, there are those of us who believe a person should not escape the consequences of their bad decision. A woman should not be allowed to sleep around, and just kill her baby because she doesn't want that responsibility. She already made her CHOICE when she CHOSE to sleep around.
Most pro-choice tend to argue about women's health. Unfortunately, there are no criteria for abortion. Many people I speak with who are for abortion, do not support it being used as a form of birth control. I, personally, believe in self-sacrificing. If a woman choices her life over her baby's, I just find that to be cowardice. As for rape victims, my BEST FRIEND is a product of rape. When people try to argue about rape babies, I think of my friend and how he would not be here if his mother decided not to keep him.
I'm neither liberal or conservative, I one of those rare individuals capable of thinking for myself. I find it amazing that there are these ultra-liberal hippy girls that won't eat meat because it is murder. They won't wear any products made from animals such as leather or wool. They tie themselves to trees to prevent them from getting cut down, and cry when they do. Yet, they believe in abortion because of choice. That's pure hypocrisy.
By: digitalprime
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
That's fine for your friend, and your friend's mother, but some victims would rather not have a life long reminder of how they were violated, and then having to raise half a scum-bag. Are you telling rape victims to just "get over it?"
Also, I think if you polled the dumbasses who chain themselves to trees, I think you would find a far lower percentage who are pro-choice than the general public at least. However, that's just an anecdotal guess, in their defense.
Also, I think if you polled the dumbasses who chain themselves to trees, I think you would find a far lower percentage who are pro-choice than the general public at least. However, that's just an anecdotal guess, in their defense.
By: Faffy
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Wow! "Raise half a scum bag". Do you think digitalprimes friend considers herself "half a scumbag". Do you think she ever thinks to herself, "My dad was a rapist, I wish I was dead", or do you think that maybe she has a happy, productive life and is capable of loving people and being loved?
I wonder if you would make such comments to her face to face? "half a scumbag", astonishing.
I wonder if you would make such comments to her face to face? "half a scumbag", astonishing.
By: PalmBayChuck
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
First and foremost, since it involves those among us: I am half a product of my father, half a product of my mother. If my father were a scumbag, I would be half a product of a scumbag. Isn't it clear that's what Faffy is alluding to? I'm fairly certain that Faffy doesn't actually believe that children who are the product of rape are lesser human beings. But hey, keep the ad hom's comin', Chuck.
Moving right along. When Peter Singer says that poor women would be harmed by outlawing abortion, he's not making a normative (moral) claim regarding abortion. He's saying that if abortion is illegal, rich women will still be able to get abortions, because they can simply pay off a trained professional to perform the abortion. On the other hand, poor women will have to get "back alley" abortions, which are dangerous and can end in the death of the pregnant woman. You seem to have misunderstood this.
Regarding your paragraph that begins "Later Singer suggest that maybe we should define life..." I'm not sure the exact wording Singer uses in the video, but if you read his works, Singer isn't concerned with life, per se. Parasites are alive, plants are alive. Singer is first and foremost concerned with personhood (what it is to be a person). Your analogy to Hitler not only invokes Godwin's law, but is completely wrong. While Singer's claim that "things that are incapable of forming preferences and future desires are not persons" is highly controversial, it doesn't have much to do with genocide (Although Singer DOES think that it is acceptable to euthanize someone in a persistent vegetative state if nobody else cares).
Pretty much every argument in this comment section about Singer is wrong, which is understandable because it's difficult to understand Singer without being familiar with his work. As I've already said in this thread, I think he's wrong, but let's not sell him short.
Moving right along. When Peter Singer says that poor women would be harmed by outlawing abortion, he's not making a normative (moral) claim regarding abortion. He's saying that if abortion is illegal, rich women will still be able to get abortions, because they can simply pay off a trained professional to perform the abortion. On the other hand, poor women will have to get "back alley" abortions, which are dangerous and can end in the death of the pregnant woman. You seem to have misunderstood this.
Regarding your paragraph that begins "Later Singer suggest that maybe we should define life..." I'm not sure the exact wording Singer uses in the video, but if you read his works, Singer isn't concerned with life, per se. Parasites are alive, plants are alive. Singer is first and foremost concerned with personhood (what it is to be a person). Your analogy to Hitler not only invokes Godwin's law, but is completely wrong. While Singer's claim that "things that are incapable of forming preferences and future desires are not persons" is highly controversial, it doesn't have much to do with genocide (Although Singer DOES think that it is acceptable to euthanize someone in a persistent vegetative state if nobody else cares).
Pretty much every argument in this comment section about Singer is wrong, which is understandable because it's difficult to understand Singer without being familiar with his work. As I've already said in this thread, I think he's wrong, but let's not sell him short.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
I think Faffy was just trying to say that not all women who are raped and get pregnant choose to keep the child. Just because digitalprime's best friend choose to give birth to the child and raise him/her, this doesn't mean that someone who decides to have an abortion is making the wrong decision. They just made a different decision, which they probably considered to be the correct decision. You must realize that the concept of what's right and what's wrong (morals) varies from person to person. Don't expect everyone to subscribe to your belief system.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
I am totally fine when people express their opinion on morality of abortion, but I get worried when they want to legally impose their moral views to the rest of us.
Women should have right to stop their pregnancy regardless if some people think that’s immoral or not. If the foetus cannot survive on its own, it should be aborted. If it’s old enough to be surgically removed and placed in an incubator with possibility of survival, it should be given for an adoption.
Where do we stop when it comes to imposing our moral views to others by making them enforceable by law?
What’s next? If the newborn has massive heart failure without possibility of survival, should we hook it up to mothers blood supply and saw them together if that can save newborn’s life?
Let’s go even further. Let’s make us obligated by law to donate our organs to our kids if that will save their life. I mean, it is moral to support your child’s life...isn’t it?
Or let’s just say, if your closest relative is dying from massive kidney failure, police will knock on your door and force you to donate your kidney, because it’s your moral obligation, and you should not complain about that!
You will probably find some pro-life people thinking “Hey, that’s not a bad idea! My uncle Richard would be alive now!” And they scare the hell out of me!
Women should have right to stop their pregnancy regardless if some people think that’s immoral or not. If the foetus cannot survive on its own, it should be aborted. If it’s old enough to be surgically removed and placed in an incubator with possibility of survival, it should be given for an adoption.
Where do we stop when it comes to imposing our moral views to others by making them enforceable by law?
What’s next? If the newborn has massive heart failure without possibility of survival, should we hook it up to mothers blood supply and saw them together if that can save newborn’s life?
Let’s go even further. Let’s make us obligated by law to donate our organs to our kids if that will save their life. I mean, it is moral to support your child’s life...isn’t it?
Or let’s just say, if your closest relative is dying from massive kidney failure, police will knock on your door and force you to donate your kidney, because it’s your moral obligation, and you should not complain about that!
You will probably find some pro-life people thinking “Hey, that’s not a bad idea! My uncle Richard would be alive now!” And they scare the hell out of me!
By: flopnik
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
How can your religious views not affect your thoughts? As a religious person, my thoughts are completely saturated with my religious views. They cannot be separated. If I professed to be a Christian, then ripped people off, you'd call me a hypocrite (unless my actions / statements somehow reinforced or agreed wit your views). Therefore, my views have to match my spiritual beliefs for me to be consistent.
I love the fact that so far, everyone is being civil!
Also, I don't want to subject women to butcher of illegal abortion. I would submit that there are other options that take the life of the baby into account, such as keeping the baby or putting it up for adoption. In my mind, the baby must always be part of the equation for any solutions that are sought.
I love the fact that so far, everyone is being civil!
Also, I don't want to subject women to butcher of illegal abortion. I would submit that there are other options that take the life of the baby into account, such as keeping the baby or putting it up for adoption. In my mind, the baby must always be part of the equation for any solutions that are sought.
By: PalmBayChuck
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Chuck, I'm thinking that the recent murder of George Tiller might have a sombering effect on many of us who are on either side of the issue. That, or [patting ourselves on the back here] we're just intelligent enough to have an intelligent discussion without flame wars.
I could only share my suspicion regarding religious views, having never been so and realizing in my early teens that I was likely atheist. Your position isn't something that I would want to disgrace as being foolhardy. And if it works for you, you've got my well wishing.
I'd also like to point out that abortion as contraception is likely abhorrent to everyone. The health of the woman and embryo/getus is probably more often the case. If I were trying to have a child and it was brought to my attention that it had a birth defect that would make for a horrible life, I'm sure that I'd have a hard time coming to a decision. But you know what? The decision should not be made by our government. Keeping it in the hands of the parent(s) and their medical providers makes perfect sense to me.
I could only share my suspicion regarding religious views, having never been so and realizing in my early teens that I was likely atheist. Your position isn't something that I would want to disgrace as being foolhardy. And if it works for you, you've got my well wishing.
I'd also like to point out that abortion as contraception is likely abhorrent to everyone. The health of the woman and embryo/getus is probably more often the case. If I were trying to have a child and it was brought to my attention that it had a birth defect that would make for a horrible life, I'm sure that I'd have a hard time coming to a decision. But you know what? The decision should not be made by our government. Keeping it in the hands of the parent(s) and their medical providers makes perfect sense to me.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
I agree that it seems like there are better options, like having the baby and then giving it up for adoption. I think we should let women know about the alternatives. However, I don't think we should take away a woman's right to make this very personal and private decision.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
I'm sure people who are non-religious also see the world through a perhaps skewed (non-religous) lens. They are better are just less obvious about it.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Huh? If that's what you think, then the lens analogy is fundamentally flawed. If religious people see the world through a skewed lens and there are non-religious people who see the world through a skewed lens, then everyone sees the world through a skewed lens. If that's the case, then you aren't saying anything at all.
I hate to be the grammar nazi, but it's hard to understand what you're trying to get at.
I hate to be the grammar nazi, but it's hard to understand what you're trying to get at.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
I guess the point I was trying to make is that your religious or non-religious views affect your thought process. A non-religous person might be more prone to take a non-emotional attitude towards abortion. Although a non-emotional/scientific attitude is regarded as the most logical way of thinking, this thought process can sometimes be cold and lack respect for humanity. Perhaps the religious point of view is not so far off at times.
blah blah
blah blah
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
"Regarding Chomsky's assertion that "if they really cared about children, they'd focus on other things" and mentions third world illness from unsafe drinking water, what is he really saying? Is he suggesting that only the situation with the greatest impact should be focused on?"
No, of course he isn't saying that. He is pointing out that you shouldn't be a hypocrite. You are not in a position to debate a subject unless your views are at least somewhat consistent.
Bush II - or even the current president - is in no position to condemn the practices of torture by other countries because he himself is guilty of those practices.
Just the same way someone who beats his wife would be in no position to make a pro-choice argument on the merits of women's health.
Debates should be on certain terms which people can agree on. If you're concerned with the sanctity of life you need to back that up.
No, of course he isn't saying that. He is pointing out that you shouldn't be a hypocrite. You are not in a position to debate a subject unless your views are at least somewhat consistent.
Bush II - or even the current president - is in no position to condemn the practices of torture by other countries because he himself is guilty of those practices.
Just the same way someone who beats his wife would be in no position to make a pro-choice argument on the merits of women's health.
Debates should be on certain terms which people can agree on. If you're concerned with the sanctity of life you need to back that up.
By: MilesIomi
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Ya most people are hypocrites I suspect. But if you take what Chomsky's saying to the extreme then he's saying that you must contribute all of your earnings to people who are suffering before you can't take a "pro-life" stance on abortion. That's an unfair prerequisite since being "pro-choice" doesn't require that you spend your life being a women's choice activist.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Yes, if you take what he's saying to the extreme then you would have an impractical way of living. But why would you? He's not suggesting you do it. He's suggesting that you examine underlying issues, peoples motivations and other data and then come to your own conclusion of how to think about the matter. His concern doesn't seem to be the conclusions that are being made, but how they are being made, which is obviously very important. Especially with the question of abortion.
By: MilesIomi
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Have you been donating money to your local women's choice groups? No? Then you can't have a "pro-life" opinion since you don't give a crap about women's rights according to Chomsky's logic.
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Ironically, at one point in his career, Singer was the one who argued that one must give to charity until one reaches the point of marginal utility in order to be truly moral.
By: i8ursandwich
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Your just a pissed off troll. Argue about something that you actually know about which I'd imagine is rather limited.
By: Chamtrain
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
If I could teach my children, or the world, anything, it would be that the only relevant or important information you will ever hear will be spoken to you gently, thoughtfully, and carefully, with respect for your opinion.
Those of you arguing vehemently against the ideas expressed missed the point that nobody was trying to change your opinion. They just wanted you to have facts and perspective and to make you think.
You weren't listening.
Those of you arguing vehemently against the ideas expressed missed the point that nobody was trying to change your opinion. They just wanted you to have facts and perspective and to make you think.
You weren't listening.
By: ice-9
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Thank you for this comment. It could not have been said more succinctly.
Of course, expecting people not to argue the merits of the commentary in the video is just silly on our part. The indisputable fact is that abortions will occur and be protested from now until the end of time and noone can change this, either alone or as a collective. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant.
Of course, expecting people not to argue the merits of the commentary in the video is just silly on our part. The indisputable fact is that abortions will occur and be protested from now until the end of time and noone can change this, either alone or as a collective. Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant.
By: Chewbot
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
yep..a real hot issue...anyway...can some tell me why so many "right to lifers"LOVE the death penalty?I don´t mean the d.p. for abortion doctors but the d.p. for felons &such.they support..no love war too!especially when "non christians" are involved.the right to lifers always get pissed when I ask them that.
if life is sooo sacred then execution in all it´s forms is wrong?
99% of these people contradict themselves blindly.
Do I believe in abortion?No but,I have seen the absolute worst poverty&abuse.I understand the why the abortion option must exist.
the genie is out of the bottle.
control is an illusion..
reality is a motherfucker..
yadda yadda
blah blah blah
if life is sooo sacred then execution in all it´s forms is wrong?
99% of these people contradict themselves blindly.
Do I believe in abortion?No but,I have seen the absolute worst poverty&abuse.I understand the why the abortion option must exist.
the genie is out of the bottle.
control is an illusion..
reality is a motherfucker..
yadda yadda
blah blah blah
By: dr.fate
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Everyone contradicts themselves it seems. We can build these morals in the theoretical world, but sometimes these morals just don't quite fit into certain situations that occur in real life. As an example of my own contradiction, I don't understand how wars can be legal while murder is illegal. However, I believe that certain killings were justified (such as U.S. soldiers killing Nazis).
In my opinion, abortion is a necessary evil that government should neither support or ban in a so-called secular society. This stance would reflect the real world non-consensus on the subject.
blah blah blah
In my opinion, abortion is a necessary evil that government should neither support or ban in a so-called secular society. This stance would reflect the real world non-consensus on the subject.
blah blah blah
By: KeyserSosay
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Good post, and good comments about keeping civil
By: jbruddy
Re: Noam Chomsky & Peter Singer on Abortion
Yeah, but not everyone is listening. Let's just say matters of life and death bring out the worst and/or best in people.
