He claims that his atheistic and culturally extreme views are the result of pure intellectual labor, but he acknowledges that he was "impressed early on with my grandmother's argument: How could there be a God who would let the Holocaust happen?"”

Oh, I'm very sorry to hear of Johnson's death! She was a tireless advocate for the rights of the disabled, and justice will miss her.

As for Singer's theistic argument, I call bull. I get so sick of these folks blaming God for human evil, while trying to convince me at the same time that God is dead. Atheists say they keep waiting for religious people to grow up. Well, I'm not seeing a great deal of rational maturity in them, either.

Singer didn’t tell any lies about Down’s syndrome just becase you've found a tiny few execptions to the rule.

A wide spectrum of ability and rate of development IS the rule. And it is impossible to predict ability or development at birth. Singer's broad generalizations ignore the real data which is readily available. That's called willfull ignorance, or in the case of a tenured professor, lying to support your agenda. You seem to approve.

Only the first bad thing has happened – a baby has been born with a badly defective body and brain. The REAL tragedy will occur if you allow that brain to grow and develop consciousness.

And yet nearly every one grows to be grateful to be alive. Where is this "tragedy" you speak of? I recommend a field trip to the Special Olympics so you can evaluate your theory.

Do you realize that if you can ask a Down’s victim a question with expectation of receiving an answer, it’s too late, they are conscious and the real tragedy has happened? If you ask a Down’s newborn, he will be unable to even understand the words in your question, let alone answer it.

You said your benchmark is an adult ape. Ask an adult ape if it wants to live and see if you get a response. Heck, let's ask you when you are asleep and see if we get a response. Is this really your argument? "I asked the baby if he wanted to live and he didn't answer so I killed him?" You are more confused even than Singer.

Only a real fool allows a defective body or consciousness to come into existence that will have to (largely fail) to overcome a series of needless obstacles.

Again, you insist that they will fail when science tells us there is no way to predict such a thing. Why have you chosen to abandon science? Is your philosophy that important to you?

You also neglect the obvious human instinct to face and overcome obstacles, needless and otherwise. Some folks even go looking for needless obstacles to challenge (climbing mountains, running marathons). That doesn't make them fools. It is simply human. Why are you so fearful of obstacles and challenges?

The “real men” and “pussies” comments are argumentum ad coulter.

I said as much. But is it really different from you characterizing my position as that of an "evil fool"? You're awfully self-righteous about your polemics, aren't you?

When that style of argument is brought out, it’s time to close the thread.

I do understand your desire to get the last word then quickly close the thread. It's consistent with your "abort and start over" philosophy about how to deal with difficulty when you don't get your way.

But alas, it's not really your place to decide whether a thread gets closed, is it? We leave that up to the thread's creator.

A sperm and an egg on their own can’t develop into a human being. A single cell, however, can. See cloning.

Not starting the development process and stopping it before a consciousness is produce both give the same result: no new human consciousness is produced. Your way will inevitably produce some conscious minds in terribly blighted bodies. Mine won’t.

chunkdz: Singer didn’t tell any lies about Down’s syndrome just becase you've found a tiny few execptions to the rule.

If wikipedia has some articles that indicate infant consciousness, please tell me what they are. I want to know. I’m familiar with preferential looking experiments. I hope that’s not your evidence.

chunkdz: “First off, the "bad" thing has already happened, so your argument starts off wrong from the beginning.”

Only the first bad thing has happened – a baby has been born with a badly defective body and brain. The REAL tragedy will occur if you allow that brain to grow and develop consciousness. Do you realize that if you can ask a Down’s victim a question with expectation of receiving an answer, it’s too late, they are conscious and the real tragedy has happened? If you ask a Down’s newborn, he will be unable to even understand the words in your question, let alone answer it.

Regarding your “real men” fallacies. Only a real fool allows a defective body or consciousness to come into existence that will have to (largely fail) to overcome a series of needless obstacles. Abort and start over. Unless the “fool” realizes what he’s doing, in which case he’s not a fool, he’s evil.

Raevmo: The “real men” and “pussies” comments are argumentum ad coulter.

When that style of argument is brought out, it’s time to close the thread.

Real men play the game of life hard, and when bad things happen we overcome the obstacles and fight on. Only a pussy would quit the game for fear of "bad things". What is life but a series of obstacles and difficulties to overcome? You can either face challenges like a man or bail out like a pussy.

And only a pussy would kill his own child just because his/her life may look difficult. A real man takes his son or daughter by the hand and says "let's face the challenges of life together".

And only the pussiest of pussies would argue that a child should be killed because he/she might never play guitar or watch a Woody Allen movie.

Argumentatum ad felem?

What if we decide to arbitrarily define human consciousness as that level of rationality that is acheived by a PhD.

I could live with that.

How about some citations for the wikipedia article that shows that babies have minds. I’m talking about minds that at least come close to human minds, not something more like a kitten’s mind.

If you don't consider a baby's mind to be human, then wikipedia certainly isn't going to change that. But I think your major flaw lies in the fact that a baby's mind is difficult to measure since they are only beginning to communicate. However, even though it is difficult, we can learn alot about the neonatal mind through techniques like preferential looking. Google that and see how babies experience thought, memory, will, emotion, and perception. At any rate, using measurement of cognitive ability to justify killing a mind that is exceedingly difficult to measure is just ludicrous, not to mention bad bioethics.

If you realize that a baby is going to grow up to have some seriously bad things happen to it, such as Down’s syndrome, before it has become conscious, then not stopping the process in infancy has exactly the same effect as taking a healthy baby and giving it Down’s syndrome.

First off, the "bad" thing has already happened, so your argument starts off wrong from the beginning.

The question is what to do *after* the bad thing has happened. Why don't you ask some actual people with Down's syndrome if your solution of murder is the best. If any of them agree that it would be better if they had been killed in infancy I'll take that under consideration.

But is this really the best argument you can muster? "Bad things" should be avoided? Sorry for my Ann Coulter polemics, but your philosophy conjures images of a 300 lb. linebacker, completely covered in bubble wrap, begging the coach not to send him in because he's terrified that something "BAD" might happen.

Real men play the game of life hard, and when bad things happen we overcome the obstacles and fight on. Only a pussy would quit the game for fear of "bad things". What is life but a series of obstacles and difficulties to overcome? You can either face challenges like a man or bail out like a pussy.

And only a pussy would kill his own child just because his/her life may look difficult. A real man takes his son or daughter by the hand and says "let's face the challenges of life together".

And only the pussiest of pussies would argue that a child should be killed because he/she might never play guitar or watch a Woody Allen movie.

First, yes that is my mistake re: Beethoven's developed imperfection.

Second, the only difference between a fetus and a newborn and a young child and an full grown adult is development. Where do you draw the line between which stage of human development should be allowed to be killed and which stage should be allowed to survive. What if we decide to arbitrarily define human consciousness as that level of rationality that is acheived by a PhD. Imagine if life is arbitrarily defined to start after convocation. It is more consistent to respect all life and even moreso, to have a higher respect for life that has the natural potential for human conscious development.

Third, once conception has taken place, the human development process has begun. Conversely, a sperm and an egg on their own do not have the natural propensity to develop as a human.

Fourth, it should be obvious that not starting the development process of life and terminating that development process are two completely different things.

In light of these points, you may want to re-assess your last comment. It stills seems that the viewpoint I hold causes less problems ethically and is more consistent.

Celing Cat:

I’ve read either “The Brain That Changes Itself” or a very similar book. If you’re born with imperfections, that’s bad. If you can overcome them, that's good. If your parents could have stopped the process before you became aware and had a healthy baby instead, but didn’t, that would be evil.

Incorrect. It would be evil to terminate life because of possible future imperfections. These imperfections can be overcome, and those "overcomers" can still add to society, help others to overcome their imperfections, or even just enjoy life from their perspective, as I have shown above. So, why argue for a viewpoint that needs an arbitrarily drawn line as to when human life is safe from termination, and seems to say, "just throw out potentially imperfect human life with the trash?"

Chunkdz: I have never claimed that “…the only life worth living is the one where nothing ‘bad’ happens.” It is human nature to overcome adversity – people survive and heal after terrible auto accidents, cancer, gunshot wounds, etc. Nevertheless, it is better not to have an auto accident, contract cancer or get shot.

Now here’s the morality part: Bad things aren’t necessarily immoral. Cancer is bad, but it’s not immoral. Cancer isn’t conscious and only conscious entities can deliberately do something that is both unnecessary and bad or, through neglect, allow unnecessary bad things to happen. That’s immoral. That is the crux of both Singer’s point and mine. If you realize that a baby is going to grow up to have some seriously bad things happen to it, such as Down’s syndrome, before it has become conscious, then not stopping the process in infancy has exactly the same effect as taking a healthy baby and giving it Down’s syndrome. Either way, a single consciousness is created and it is terribly defective.

How about some citations for the wikipedia article that shows that babies have minds. I’m talking about minds that at least come close to human minds, not something more like a kitten’s mind.

Your last paragraph is mere insult – argumentum ad Coulter and not worthy of reply.

DJYman: Yes, a speech impediment is “bad”. It’s a pity that Faraday had one. Ditto for Goedel’s mental problems. Beethoven went deaf. If he ever went blind, it’s new to me and to Google. But deafness and blindness are bad. How would you feel if Faraday’s and Goedel’s parents had decided not to have sex the night he was conceived? Would you consider them sinners for depriving the world of Michael Faraday and Kurt Goedel? Of course not. So why would you condemn them if they stopped the process after conception or (shortly) after birth?

I’ve read either “The Brain That Changes Itself” or a very similar book. If you’re born with imperfections, that’s bad. If you can overcome them, that's good. If your parents could have stopped the process before you became aware and had a healthy baby instead, but didn’t, that would be evil.

I’m not usually on the computer on weekends, so please, all of you, take your time answering the points I’ve raised. You might also do something I’m just done: I’ve read a few of Singer’s articles, but never any of his books, so I ordered “Animal Liberation”, “Rethinking Life and Death” and “Practical Ethics” from Amazon. I won’t get them till next week and it will take a week or two to get through them. Why don’t you all do the same? Instead of reading biased interpretations of Singer and arguing from them, why not go to your library or bookstore and actually read what the man has to say?