<< You are lucky you are writing in America,--also that
> Singer has a thick skin.
What do you mean by that last sentence, is Singer reading our posts?
You never can tell, Marta. A while ago Brenner was reading what we wrote here about him. I know because he told me so.
You left off the conclusion of my paragraph which is the heart of what I was
attempting to convey:
>Singer advocates for the right of parents (and society) to kill disabled babies
under one month old under HIS rationale, they are not fully human.
Singer's not singling out disabled babies. He thinks that it's as OK to kill _any_ one-month old, disabled or not, as it is to kill any nonrational animal. His point is line-drawing is hard. From a moral point of view--obviously he's not arguing law, since he; not an idiot; he recognizes that legallys peaking killing a newborn is murder--but from a moral point of view, it's very hard to say why late term abortion should be OK and infanticide (of any newborns, even healthy and normal ones) should not be. Singer thinks late terma bortions are OK, so he concludes that from a moral point of infanticide must be.
The philosopher Michael Tooley has developed Singer's thought at great length in his book Abortion and Infanticide.
--jks
>>