Paul Singer: Killing newborn babies, A-Okay?

Zen Tiger left a response to a post, linked here, that I didn't want to get lost. Here it is for you to consider and to consider how far we have de-volved, as Americans with our once honored view of the sanctity of life - all human life - that we would now have a professor teaching of a mother's right to kill her newborn baby (the one she missed out on aborting by having its brains sucked out of its tiny skull with its tiny heart still beating) in what some would have in yester-year considered a prestigious university, Princeton, if I am not mistaken. The same Princeton that gives us the angry Mrs. "First Lady In Waiting" Obama. God help us, that is if He still looks our way... You can look up the book for yourself, read and enjoy. In the one review I read, Mr. Singer is tauted as a forward-thinking philosopher. I wonder if he would have seen the humanity in the injecting of Terri Shiavo with a lethal drug instead of the state-sanctioned brutal murder that was carried out with not a drop of water being allowed to touch her lips as she was starved and dehydrated unto death. My God, the shame we have upon us... From Zen Tiger at New Zealand Conservative: ~~~~~ Peter Singer writes in Rethinking Life and Death: "Human babies are not born self-aware or grasping their lives over time. They are not persons. Hence their lives would seem to be no more worthy of protection than the life of a fetus." This is the basis for his argument it is alright to kill newborn babies. I think his defenders say his argument is much more nuanced than that. Whatever. His argument is that he draws a line, and the line is on self-awareness and an understanding of time. On that basis, you can murder many people, and certainly premature babies. It's only one way of drawing a line, and when lines are drawn, the reasons and excuses come thick and fast. It's been relabeled as "new morality". Where's the morality in avoiding the word "murder"? ~~~~~