Monday, November 19, 2012


Please note that this post is NOT about Ann Coulter. It is about the direction our amoral education system is headed and what is considered "acceptable" by an increasing number of people in our so-called "civilized society."

After effectively barring conservative columnist Ann Coulter from speaking on campus last week, the Jesuit college Fordham University welcomed infanticide and bestiality advocate Peter Singer for a panel discussion on Friday.

According to Fordham’s media relations website, Singer, a tenured Princeton bioethics professor, spoke from 4 to 6 p.m. in a panel the university promised “will provoke Christians to think about other animals in new ways.”

Singer has long lamented the societal stigma against having sex with animals.

“Not so long ago,” Singer wrote in one essay, “any form of sexuality not leading to the conception of children was seen as, at best, wanton lust, or worse, a perversion. One by one, the taboos have fallen. But … not every taboo has crumbled.”

In the essay, titled “Heavy Petting,” Singer concluded that “sex across the species barrier,” while not normal, “ceases to be an offence [sic] to our status and dignity as human beings.”

“Occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop” when humans have sex with their pets, he claimed.

In addition to supporting bestiality and immediately granting equal legal rights to animals, Singer has also advocated euthanizing the mentally ill and aborting disabled infants on utilitarian grounds.

In his 1993 essay “Taking Life,” Singer, in a section called “Justifying Infanticide and Non-Voluntary Euthanasia,” wrote that “killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person.”

“Very often it is not wrong at all,” he added, noting that newborns should not be considered people until approximately a month after their birth.

Both Singer and his supporters maintain that ethics experts must often confront taboo topics to arrive at greater philosophical truths.

The Catholic Cardinal Newman Society’s blog spoke out against Fordham’s decision to allow Singer a speaking event in a recent blog post. “Be assured, this is not a Peter Singer scandal. This is a Fordham scandal. The moderator of the event is Charles Camosy, a Fordham theologian,” the society wrote.

However, James Schall, a Jesuit and a senior government professor at Georgetown University, defended Singer’s appearance at Fordham in an email to The Daily Caller.

“Basically, the Church is not afraid of any idea, if it has a fair chance freely to explain its own position,” Schall said. “Normally, a university is the place, but this [issue] demands more liberty to hear the Catholic view than most places permit.”

Schall also condemned Singer’s views in no uncertain terms.

“His position is lethal really, and incoherent, but too much of the culture accepts it,” Schall added.

Learn more about this HERE.


Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Singer's beliefs are the logical conclusion of the liberals' beliefs about sexuality and abortion.

Joe said...

GEC: But they will tell you that we have no right to tell them what to do or not to do, nor do we have a right to think them immoral (or amoral).

Ducky's here said...

Once again you over reach Joe.

Myself, I don't find Singer all that convincing although in typical fringe right style you reduce his thought to a couple of his most controversial ideas. Free debate is alive at Fordham but not in the far right political conversation.

Is the idea that self awareness is necessary for "life" absurd?

His ideas on animals are not as far fetched as his statement on bestiality implies. Many would be consistent with a belief in sound husbandry of the earth which is a little lacking in Christian doctrine right now.
If someone has a neurotic need for animal sex are you really going to stop them? Doesn't seem worth talking about.

Joe said...

Ducky: "...are you really going to stop them?"

What an inane question! Who said anything about stopping them?

I would not know how, nor would I try.

My point was, people like you will try to excuse it.

And you did...just as I predicted.

Ducky's here said...

Silly Joe, in no way do I even intimate that I condone bestiality. I simply state that this particular statement of Singer's seems to me to be Singer at his most extreme and provocative.

I also don't see any point in condemning the practice since it is a victimless action. The pathology of this particular drive is pretty obscure.

Yes, I do believe that you think public censure will prevent the behavior. Nonsense.

Joe said...

Ducky: " is a victimless action."

You might want check with PETA about that.