Peter Singer Says In Case Of Fire Leave The Baby, Save The Pigs Australian-born moral thinkologist Peter Singer is no stranger to controversy. Hes been stirring it up whenever he opens his mouth about babies and fetuses (same thing, really, the only difference is being in the womb). The man actually has said mothers should have the option to terminate a child after birth, although not in so many words. He is also an advocate of the idea that all animals including humans are equal and that animals should have equal rights. Singer is a humanistic atheist and even with that on his resume, he still gets invited to speak at major bioethics and philosophy meetings. The hope, apparently, is that people wont notice he philosophically opposes human reproduction. However, Singers viewpoints published in a Swiss newspaper in May got him uninvited to a philosophy festival in Cologne called phil.Cologne. Neue Zuricher Zeitung: You do not consider an infant to be more worthy of protection than an embryo. On the other hand, you do not necessarily ascribe a higher status to humans than to animals. Peter Singer: Belonging to the human species is not what makes it morally wrong to kill a living being. Why should all members of the species homo sapiens have a right to life, whereas other species do not? This idea is merely a remnant of our religious legacy. For centuries, we have been told that man was created in the image of God, that God granted us dominion over the animals and that we have an immortal soul. NZZ: If you were standing in front of a burning house with 200 pigs and one child inside, and you could choose to save either the animals or the child, what would you do? PS: At a certain point, the animals suffering becomes so great that one should choose to save the animals over the child. Whether this point occurs at 200 or two million animals, I dont know. But one cannot let an infinite number of animals burn to save the life of one child NZZ: How about yourself: are you useful enough? PS: Considering the influence Ive had, my choice of profession is justified. I have motivated people to think about reducing animal suffering and helping people who live in extreme poverty NZZ: Would you go as far as to torture a baby if this were to bring about permanent happiness for the whole of mankind? PS: This question is from Dostoevskys The brothers Karamazov; Ivan poses it to his brother Alyosha. I may not be capable of doing it, as it is in my evolutionarily developed nature to protect children from harm. But it would be the right thing to do. Because if I didnt, thousands of children would be tortured in the future. Unbelievable. There are actually people out there that think like this. Every species on earth that births young is programmed to care for offspring. If humans are to be equated with other animals, that should be a given. However, to give precedence in an emergency to livestock over a human infant is particularly swinish. No one with a properly formed conscience wants to see animals harmed or tortured unduly, but in an emergency, they are not human, no matter their place in their animal kingdom. What is interesting about this incident is that while Peter Singer is revered by such leftist media organs as the New York Times, and still gets invited to philosophical meetings, even the Germans will uninvite him when his words are simply too much for moral people to bear. Also worth reading on this topic, Wesley J. Smith of National Review 