The Main Doctrine/Dogma of the Darwinian/Eugenics Religion: “Sterilize and/or Exterminate Every Human Being Who is Not Considered to Be Fit for Life!”

The person being referred to in the following article is yet another example of the dehumanizing effect of the Darwinian/Eugenics religion:

Ethics Professor Says It’s “Quite Reasonable” to Kill Disabled Babies via Obamacare

By Daisy Luther

Has anyone else noticed that most professors of ethics aren’t exactly…ummm…ethical? At least the ones who get quoted, anyway.

A professor at the highly esteemed Princeton University doesn’t want his Obamacare premiums to increase because of caring for severely disabled babies. Dr. Pete Singer, who teaches ethics (but perhaps needs a little refresher on what the word “ethics” means) argued during a radio interview on Sunday that America should be more accepting of “intentionally ending the lives of severely disabled infants.”

First, a definition:

Ethics:  that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

In the famous words of Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Singer, a longtime mouthpiece for eugenicists everywhere, has previously drawn fire for his belief that the right to life is directly related to a person’s intelligence and ability to feel pleasure and pain, is back in the spotlight. In 1993, wrote a treatise called “Practical Ethics: Taking Life: Humans.”

Singer argued for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” for human beings not capable of understanding the choice between life and death, including “severely disabled infants, and people who through accident, illness, or old age have permanently lost the capacity to understand the issue involved.”

For Singer, the wrongness of killing a human being is not based on the fact that the individual is alive and human. Instead, Singer argued it is “characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference.”

He clearly hasn’t changed his mind. During the interview he argued that it was “quite reasonable” to ration healthcare for disabled infants:

I think if you had a health-care system in which governments were trying to say, “Look, there are some things that don’t provide enough benefits given the costs of those treatments. And if we didn’t do them we would be able to do a lot more good for other people who have better prospects,” then yes.

I think it would be reasonable for governments to say, “This treatment is not going to be provided on the national health service if it’s a country with a national health service. Or in the United States on Medicare or Medicaid.”

And I think it will be reasonable for insurance companies also to say, “You know, we won’t insure you for this or we won’t insure you for this unless you are prepared to pay an extra premium, or perhaps they have a fund with lower premiums for people who don’t want to insure against that.”

Because I think most people, when they think about that, would say that’s quite reasonable. You know, I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.

Is anyone else chilled by the fact that people like Singer are the ones teaching the next generations about ethical behavior? (emphasis added)

via Activist Post: Ethics Professor Says It’s “Quite Reasonable” to Kill Disabled Babies via Obamacare.

Did you catch the warped motto in this image above:

“Eugenics is the self direction of human evolution”

So I guess another god/creator has bitten the dust, in the minds of the Darwinian/eugenics faithful: I guess natural-selection has outlived its usefulness, and so now its creations, ‘evolved’ human beings, will take it from here? I guess, according to these religious folk, they are now god, and so capable of carrying out their own evolution, without the help of their former god?

“What fools these mortals be!”

Like me, there are people who firmly believe a world without organized religion would be the beginning of the end for this entire tyrannical system/order. But unfortunately, most of these same people do not consider Darwinian/Eugenics a religion. And this is a problem, since the current dehumanized state of the elite powers that be can be attributed, in part, to this one covert religion.

Moving on. Did you catch this ‘ethical’ statement by Dr. Singer:

“I don’t want my health insurance premiums to be higher so that infants who can experience zero quality of life can have expensive treatments.”

What a self-actualized, genocidal ass! I wonder what it’s like to be a two-legged god with a PhD in ‘ethics’?

How in the hell does this self-obsessed, bloviating ass know if an infant experiences “zero quality of life”, whether the infant was born healthy and ‘normal’ or not? Is there any one of us who is god-like enough to be capable of knowing what another human being is truly experiencing, good or bad, and to what extent? And since this self-loving psychotic would most likely consider his warped opinion to be based on science, where is the scientific evidence to confirm his premise that a baby born with so-called ‘defects’ experiences “zero quality of life?” I know where the science is, in this Darwinian/Eugenicists’ dehumanized ‘mind’.

{We happen to live in an age where ‘scientific’ premises/hypotheses are treated as written-in-stone law, and with little or no testing, or verification of any kind, needed: if you have a PhD in any science field, and have a tiny brain-fart, your tiny brain-fart will suddenly end up in a ‘peer review’, or textbook, where it will be pandered as absolute fact, absolute truth, absolute law! True curiosity, intellectual pursuit and reason, like everything else worthwhile and beneficial to humanity, have been murdered by elite-swine owned and operated, Nobel-Prize seeking egomaniacs!)

This infant-murdering PhD is as religious as any television evangelist, in his ‘reasoning’, only on the opposite side of the religious coin. Singer preaches that his religious doctrine of ‘natural selection’ (Darwin), ‘survival of the fittest’ (Spencer) and ‘the well born’ life (Galton) is “quite reasonable”, just as televangelists preach that their fire and brimstone hell and fluffy-cloud heaven are “quite reasonable”. And neither side can back up their doctrine/dogma with verifiable, empirical evidence; since there is no more verifiable, empirical evidence to prove there is no creator than there is verifiable, empirical evidence to prove there is one. Thus both the televangelists’ and Doc Singer’s doctrine/dogma are simply based on FAITH, and FAITH, of course, is a religious notion that has little to do with science.

But the real issue, here, is this: Dr Singer is showing the classic dehumanized signs of his particular religious faith, the Darwinian/Eugenics religion. This man has been so programmed to devalue life of any kind that he most likely is unaware of just how mentally and emotionally ill he sounds, and is. Just as the fundamentalist believer sounds insane, when he or she is spewing threats of fire and brimstone, so this doctor of ‘ethics’ sounds insane, as he spews his “life is of no value, unless it meets my eugenicist criteria”.

Dr Singer’s religious mindset is the same as that of early Merican eugenicists, when they ‘legally’ forced tens of thousands of “feeble-minded” Mericans to be sterilized. Singer’s mindset is not much different from Hitler’s, when Adolph had hundreds of thousands of Europeans imprisoned, tortured and mass-murdered, and simply for not being ‘fit to live’. When life is devalued in this manner, then heinous atrocities like these will ultimately be the result. And history is my witness.

There is no man or woman who has ever been given the universal power, the universal authority/right, to decide who is ‘fit to live’ and who is not! Once upon a time, when there was still some sanity left in the world, eugenics would have been considered the hypothesis of a madman, a lunatic. And those who thought themselves to be god-like enough to decide who was ‘fit for life’ and who was not, would have been wrapped up in a straitjacket and kept in a padded cell. But not today. Oh no, not today. Today, the madmen, the lunatics, like Dr Singer, are running the asylum we all live in, and we are giving them our consent to do so.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “The Main Doctrine/Dogma of the Darwinian/Eugenics Religion: “Sterilize and/or Exterminate Every Human Being Who is Not Considered to Be Fit for Life!”

  1. There was questions of whether it was ethical to give Dick Cheney a new heart because of his age.
    There are exceptions to ever rule and in this case it was an error in ethics. The good thing to do was to have killed the son of a bitch at birth ………… but how could we have known?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Yep! That’s it! Agree completely.

    Exactly, “how could we have known?” This is my point, we are not capable of judging who a person is or will be at birth, nor what quality of life the person will experience.

    The reason you and I hate Cheney, along with a multitude of others, is because he thinks of himself as a god who can do with human beings as he sees fit.

    This needs to end, and any religion/ideology/philosophy that supports this kind of insanity needs to be dealt with severely!

    Thanks, my president elect! Tube in 2016!

    Like

  3. This is what happens when you have psychopaths in positions of authority. They have no empathy and are only concerned with their own personal needs, so the needs and even the lives of other are considered irrelevant. Anyone who ties to argue for the morality of “non-voluntary euthanasia” is not fit for human society

    Like

  4. Absolutely! They have been dehumanized. I know I hold a radical position on this, but I cannot get past this idea that many of our problems, today, stem from this so-called ‘science’.

    I no longer hold to religion or religious beliefs. My view of this issue is based on what I see happening and my experiences with this religion as well. I once sought out Darwinism as the truth. I wanted to prove to myself that there wasn’t a creator. But over the years, Darwinism failed me just like Christianity had. And then, years ago, I began to investigate eugenics, and I was appalled by the notion that a few ‘perfect’ human beings could sit and decide who could live and procreate and who couldn’t. I could go on, but I won’t.

    I also believe, firmly, that Zionism has always been the founder and promoter of these two ‘theories’.

    Thanks!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. It’s a long read and, quite honestly, tedious, because Black backs up everything he writes with info.

    This is the book that, five or six years ago, really opened my eyes to the evil that is eugenics/genetics. I wrote about eugenics on my old blog, which doesn’t exist anymore. And now all the alternative sites are writing about eugenics. I’m glad it is finally being exposed. Genetics is just a cover up name for eugenics!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. It is very troubling, so you might want to wait until you’re feeling better. I’m serious, it was fascinating but very troubling to me.

    Francis Galton, a half cousin of Charles Darwin came up with the term eugenics just shortly after Darwin published The Origins. The English people ultimately rejected eugenics for the same reasons I do.

    Not surprisingly, however, it became an immediate success with elite Mericans, and the Merican Eugenics Society was born. Hitler’s scientists and doctors brought members of this society to help formulate their sterilization program, and this collaboration continued into world war two. Of course, with Rockefeller, Ford, Carnegie and others funding the Hitler regime, what I just shared shouldn’t be to surprising.

    It’s all so convoluted and disgusting, in particular, the hypocrisy of it all just infuriates me!

    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.