The American Spectator

g.e.Taylor| 7.16.09 @ 7:25AM

You do yourself and your magazine a disservice by putting forth this cheap shot.
Shame on you.

Becky| 7.16.09 @ 7:37AM

I believe Mr. Singer is an advocate of parents having up to two years after the birth of their baby to decide if it is viable. It is not a cheap shot, it is what Mr. Singer has advocated for quite a while. He firmly believes that some humans are less worthy of using resourses than others.

The troubling aspect is that human judgement is flawed in that area, even for smart people. We have worshiped education for so long, we have come to believe in intelligence as the overarching quality of human existance. There is more to good decision making than intellect, contrary to current trends.

If you are so dumb you need the government to run aspects of your private life (like your body), why would you believe you are worthy of a higher education; that is, that you have the capacity to think and reason?

Andrew B| 7.16.09 @ 7:48AM

If you want a really illuminating look into Mr. Singer's psyche, look up his thoughts regarding his own mother and her care.

All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Tim| 7.16.09 @ 8:30AM

g. e. Taylor
Right on Bro! Because of your revolutionary fervor, Obama will kill you last.

Tim| 7.16.09 @ 8:34AM

"If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed."

I believe in rationing healthcare. Yes I do: if the able bodied won't work and/or won't pay five cents for a policy , then when then get sick they won't get any.

Tim| 7.16.09 @ 8:43AM

Healthcare is your right: dying is your duty.

Beware the fine print!

JBCARPER| 7.16.09 @ 9:31AM

No wonder we can't have a serious debate about healthcare and it's costs. Too many people are irrational in their thinking and are so narrow minded that true conversation and exchange of ideas is nearly impossible.
Is there a point at which it doesn't make sense to prolong life? Probably, but the real discussion centers on who gets to make that decision. Does the sick person get to make the decision that they wish to live without any regard to the cost? If so, what happens when the person involved has no financial resources? Does the government through some sort of rule and regulation determine who is treated and who isn't?
No one has a right to live forever. Everyone of us will die at some point.
Personally I think it should be a decision made by the individual and any support group that wishes to get involved. But the people making the decision should also be the ones who bare the costs. Does that mean that the poor will suffer disproportionately in medical treatment? Yes, it does. There are individuals with resources who may chose to come to their aid. That is what charity is all about. BUT it is by individual choice that charity takes place.

ds80| 7.16.09 @ 11:52AM

g.e.Taylor - truth hurts, doesn't it?

But not as much as having surgical scissors jammed into your skull.

Make yourself useful: go save a spotted owl.

William| 7.16.09 @ 12:15PM

Hard left elitists are always in the end based on three things:

1) controlling people;

2) jacking money;

3) killing the weak.

Patriot| 7.16.09 @ 1:13PM

Liberals hate truth like cockroaches hate light: Taylor is no exception.

Hoverbikes| 7.17.09 @ 2:12PM

I imagine any thoughtful person who bothers to read both this AmSpec post and Singer's article will come away with a diminished view of AmSpec. If you disagree with specific arguments Singer makes, why not debate them on the merits?

Instead, we get two tweets worth of distortion and lies. But this isn't Twitter. There is no word limit. There is nothing stopping you from explaining why you disagree with what he wrote. (Instead of just calling him a babykiller.) Why not engage the argument?

For the writers and publishers of the American Spectator, that question is strictly rhetorical. But its readership should actually consider the answer.

I submit that it's because AmSpec isn't about looking for the right answer, it's about keeping you ignorant, angry, and dismissive of any ideas that might change your mind.