Mover Mike

Back in February of 2003 in the New Yorker there was an article Unspeakable Conversations, by Harriet McBryde Johnson. Ms Johnson is severely crippled, confined to a wheelchair, and a lawyer. In the article she has numerous debates in person and vis e-mail with Prof. Peter Singer of Princeton, often called the most influential philosopher of our time believes that babies should be aborted if they are impaired mentally or physically.

He wants to legalize the killing of certain babies who might come to be like me if allowed to live. He also says he believes that it should be lawful under some circumstances to kill, at any age, individuals with cognitive impairments so severe that he doesn't consider them ''persons.''

I have refrained from posting about the Terri Schiavo case, frankly, because I couldn't sort out the arguments or which side had truth on their side. I came across this article (hat tip to Free Republic) and suddenly things are clear...for me. Prof Singer Singer lays it all out.

The ''illogic'' of allowing abortion but not infanticide, of allowing withdrawal of life support but not active killing. Applying the basic assumptions of preference utilitarianism, he spins out his bone-chilling argument for letting parents kill disabled babies and replace them with nondisabled babies who have a greater chance at happiness. It is all about allowing as many individuals as possible to fulfill as many of their preferences as possible.

IMO, it is just a short step from what is allowable today to "active killing".