I’m afraid you still do not quite appear to grasp Singer’s views. I don’t blame you – they’re very different from the traditional views. They are not necessarily better, however Siger’s concept is convincing and has integrity. It seems to me that you argue against his views, but supposing you can completely demolish them, do you have a better concept to offer? If so, why not present it and let your readers choose the better one?

I never read in Singer’s texts that a foetus or newborn is absolutely unworthy of living or unworthy of protection. He simply claims that “personhood” is acquired gradually. Nothing in life is black-and-white, and we are not a non-person one second and a whole person the next (if we are, please show us how and when it happens). Therefore, to Singer, the kind of protection that you or I deserve is also acquired gradually and not awarded in an instant. He never, ever advocates killing anyone, his argument is purely theoretical. It does logically reflect what we already intuitively feel anyway – even the most conservative Christians do not really treat a woman who had an abortion the same way as a cold-blood murderer. It seems that whether we are pro-life or pro-choice, we still do recognise that abortion may be a lesser evil.

Therefore just like an child is not an adult, a fetus is not a child, and is far less of a person. I fell in love with my daughter when I felt her in my wife’s belly, and when I saw her beautiful face in an ultrasound picture. This had nothing to do with her “personhood”, as I had no way of knowing then what her personality would be. I loved her because she was my daughter, regardless of whether she was a person or not.

Just like the science you invoke, Singer is also pretty clear that a human embryo becomes a human fetus which becomes a human baby, a human child and a human adult. This is never questioned. But this whole transformation is a long, gradual process.

Given time, a human fetus will (usually) turn into an adult human being. But a potential of becoming something is not the same as being it. a fetus is not an adult. It is also not a full person.

My daughter has a potential to become a wonderful piano player. Or a movie star. Or a Nobel Prize laureate. But there is no guarantee, just a potential. A fetus likewise has only a potential to become a human being. Supposing it turns out not to grow a functioning brain – would this really be a full human being and a person? If so, what makes someone a human person?

I do respect your right to disagree with Singer, and am glad we live in a world where different ideas may coexist. I would be truly horrified if anyone’s ethical ideas – whether yours or Singer’s – were to become a state ideology.

As to bestiality, again I do not feel you do understand his views. He does not advocate bestiality, but merely states that a mutualy fulfilling relationship is enriching and beautiful, regardless who the parties are. Again, this is a purely theoretical statement. But if a man an a non-human animal (say, a chimpanzee) were in a loving relationship out of their free wills, on what basis could we condemn them? The trouble with a practical application of this rule is that I do not know if I could be sure whether the non-human partner is really willingly committed to such a relationship!

Singer argues a parent should have a right to end the life of their fetus/newborn… which means he DOES actually mean that a fetus/ newborn is not worthy of protection.

I’d say primarily, this argument is based on the idea that “they are not persons”.

But the science is pretty clear that a human embryo becomes a human fetus which becomes a human baby, a human child and a human adult.

Nowhere along that line is there a chance that the embryo or fetus or baby will turn into something other than a human being.

Every single person has gone through those stages… our lack of self-awareness when we were newborns was simply one of the many developmental points in our life journeys.

I have read and listened to Peter Singer – with my brain working – and I find his vision for our world horrifying.

Then there are his ideas about bestiality… seems it takes a truly “great, logical compassionate thinker” to find room for doubt about whether it’s really so wrong for humans to have sexual contact with animals.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2920673.htm

Singer may be an atheist, but he is a great, logical and compassionate thinker. Trouble is, few go into the trouble of trying to read and understand what he has to say. It is much easier to just dismiss him without making your brains work.

Everyone always has such a pathetic response to Singer…always a smoke-blowing, half understanding sort of thing…sigh.

I guess the “repugnant” quote is this:

“Human babies are not born self-aware or capable of grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection that the life of a fetus.”

If so, then observe what he says: that morally there is no huge difference between a fetus and a newborn. That life is not black-or white, and we do not become humans in an instant. What he does not say is that the life of a fetus is NOT worthy of protection, just that it doesn’t have the same value.

If you wanted to study the real teaching of Jesus, would you get it from his adversaries? Didn’t think so… Same with Singer. By all means, read what they say, but do not assume that they represent them correctly. They interpret him!

Of course you can try to understand a person second-hand, but it’s much more difficult than by getting first-hand information. Thank you for asking my opinion directly and not through my enemies!

My impression from reading your text was that Singer calls for certain groups of people to be killed. Totally wrong! Either you got Singer wrong, or I got you wrong…

When I was a kid I could never understand why when our dog was sick it was put to sleep, and our elderly relatives were not. I still think we are morally very confused to allow that.

But what does that have to do with anything?

Furthermore, why don’t views interpreted by his adversaries count?

Your comment seems to be suggesting several things. I’m curious to see if I’m right.

One, is it not possible to understand a person or their views without reading them first hand? [Naturally it's not the best way, but sufficient?]

Two, is my interpretation of Singer incorrect? How?

Did I get that right?

By the way, when you say a cow’s life is at least as worthy as a human baby’s, what did you mean by that?

Thank you for your message. There are people who just enjoy condemning everything they disagree with – just because! Hope you are not one of them and you are really interested in his views. Are you able to provide any quote from Singer himself you find repugnant (quotes out of context and his view as interpreted by his adversaries don’t count!)?

I would recommend you start with his “Practical Ethics”, as it discusses many different issues, and no doubt you will find some of them at least interesting.

The great thing about Singer’s system is that it provides a platform for people of different philosophical viewpoints. You can be an agnostic, baptist, hindu, atheist, catholic or even an animist and find that you still share the same conclusions. It’s because his views are not grounded in any sectarian way of thinking. There is no dogmatic “God said it, it settles it”, only rational thinking.

No wonder he is one of the most influential ethical thinkers of today. You don’t suggest that he would get his prestigious university chairs if his views were simply “repugnant”? Of course, it’s possible to disagree with him on some points, but has someone actually rationally proven that his views are mistaken or wrong?

Happy reading!

Looking forward to hearing from you, sir.

Ethically, the life of an adult pig or cow is certainly at least as worthy as a human baby’s. Recognising this fact does not constitute advocating the baby being killed.

If only those who try to discuss Singer attempted to understand what he says first!