Pro-Infanticide Peter Singer Lectures at Catholic College

Politics   |   Steven Ertelt   |   Apr 16, 2012   |   1:00PM   |   Washington, DC

CORRECTION:  The Cardinal Newman Society now indicates it had the wrong Peter Singer. “Yesterday, The Cardinal Newman Society reported that Peter Singer of Princeton University was invited to Georgetown to speak on the ethics of automated war. But it was in fact Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution. Our apologies for the misinformation. We will work to ensure that this doesn’t occur again.”

LifeNews regrets the error in reporting the incorrect information we received from the Cardinal Newman Society and we withdraw the following story:

Georgetown University is under fire for allowing Peter Singer, the pro-infanticide professor, lecture on campus this past weekend. The decision is drawing outrage from a prolife Catholic education watchdog, the Cardinal Newman Society.

Matthew Archbold, of CNS said today:  “The Princeton University Professor of Bio-Ethics Peter Singer has proclaimed that no newborn should be considered a person until 30 days after birth and that killing disabled babies could be considered a moral good. So why, one might ask, did Georgetown University, a Jesuit institution, invite one of the most outspoken advocates of euthanasia to campus this past weekend?”

“It would seem that Dr. Singer, far from being invited to a Catholic campus should be escorted off one,” Archbold added. “But the Georgetown Lecture Fund invited Singer to speak this past weekend to speak on ethical issues of using robots in war, according to their website.”

The pro-life advocate said the Lecture Fund, Corp Philanthropy, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, SFS Academic Council, Georgetown International Relations Club, SFS Deans Office, Center for German and European Studies, Student Affairs, and Potomac Foundation all cosponsored the event.

Georgetown University officials did not respond to CNS’ request for more information as to why Singer was invited and how his views contradict Catholic pro-life teachings.

Archbold cited various writings of Singer’s that clearly show him advocating infanticide:

Singer once wrote, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons.”

He wrote that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee.”

Singer wrote that he’d like to see certain restrictions on infanticide only because people might feel bad about it. “We should certainly put very strict conditions on permissible infanticide, but these conditions might owe more to the effects of infanticide on others than to the intrinsic wrongness of killing an infant.”

Peter Singer wrote of the benefit of killing an infant with hemophilia:


“When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed. The loss of the happy life for the first infant is outweighed by the gain of a happier life for the second. Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would, according to the total view, be right to kill him.”

These quotes should invalidate Dr. Singer from speaking about the ethics of anything, especially on a Catholic campus.

Georgetown has a history of promoting abortion and pro-abortion politicians, including:   honoring Joe Biden in 2010, funding a student’s pro-abortion internship in 2007, funding a pro-abortion panel, and using fetal cells from abortion in research.

ACTION: Find contact information to raise your voice about this policy at