Len,

Understood. Singer has some nasty (IMO) ideas. Actually, these ideas go much further back that this. The whole notion of allowing many people to die in famines and war has been sort of 'winked at' by many in the evoloutionist/existentialist camp as a means of population reduction. APparently these folks think that the population is far too high right now and see these means as a sort of 'clean' way to reach their goals. You see some of this in the so-called 'green' movements as well.

Pretty disgusting if you ask me.



>>Heh.. They're already wanting to pre-emptively kill children born with disabilities in France. These same "cultured" people who don't want us to use capital punishment, acting like a bunch of little old ladies on a chair hiding from a mouse do not seem to give a second thought to this practice. Take a peek at: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2001/12/17/141109 for an example.
>
>These ideas were being promoted as far back as 1993, by Peter Singer, an Australian who was appointed Professor of Bioethics at your Princeton University in 1999. He went as far as suggesting that the right to life for disabled babies started at 28 days after birth, thouhg justifies non-voluntary euthanasia for adults whose mental age is that of an infant.
>
>http://icarus.uic.edu/~strian1/index.html