Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person

According to the Utilitarian Philosopher, Peter Singers last-place paragraph in his article entitled, Moral Maze, Killing aperson. Veryat every(prenominal) (Singer, 2001). In support to his aforementioned claim, he argues thatFirst of all, he utilizes kids who suffer from a condition technically referred to as Severe Spina Bifida as an example, and reiterates that even if a surgery may be carried out later in the life of these nestlingren, it still does non alternate the fact that these patients atomic number 18 extremely suffering because they would have to go finished exceedingly painful and uneasy life experiences (Singer, 2001). This imported in Singers belief that since a child pass on only live much(prenominal) an unhappy life, then it is non worth living at all, thus, the child should non suffer further and should be allowed to die instead (Singer, 2001). Again, for Singer, allow an sister who is physically challenged die is non at all standardised to kill ing an mortal and that it is not at all a impairment act because it is through with(p) to save the child from living an exceedingly unhappy life (Singer, 2001).Secondly, Singer upholds utilitarianism by encouraging the principle which states that an act is ripe if carried out to get to the great happiness and leave benefit the superior number as well (Will.., n.d.). He again picked an some other(prenominal) checkup condition, which is technically known as hemophilia to restate his conviction (Singer, 2001). He says that killing the disabled infant willing result in another newborn child with the possibility that the child will be happier, the parents would not have to worry about another child who suffers from hemophilia (Singer, 2001).Explaining further, without the child with hemophilia, the parents will not have to attend to painful bleedings which are rugged to clot if not impossible (Singer, 2001). When Singer says that greatest happiness, he means, the children will be attended to equally and adequately because t here is no other child with hemophilia to share their parents time with and at the same time, the parents will as well as be happy because they will not have to infer endlessly about their sick child (Singer, 2001).In addition to that, when Singer says greatest number, he apparently refers to the unaffected normal children, the hemophiliac who no longer has to live a painful life, as well as, the parents who never have to worry (Singer, 2001). Again, for Singer, permit an infant who is physically challenged die is not at all similar to killing an individual and that it is not at all a revile act because it is done with the intention to attain the greatest happiness and to benefit the greatest number (Singer, 2001).Third, Singer believes that killing an infant whos physically challenged is not killing an individual and that it is not an act which can be labeled as wrong because here an abortion is carried out to hamper delivery of a child who fit to prenatal diagnosis has hemophilia or Downs Syndrome (Singer, 2001). In addition to that, he says that there should be fairness and equality in the sense that if fetuses lives are taken away through an abortion, then it should also be allowable that newborns who have hemophilia or Down Syndrome etc (Singer, 2001). Also, he adds that just like fetuses, newborns may also be restored or replaced (Singer, 2001). Again, for Singer, letting an infant who is physically challenged die is not at all similar to killing an individual and that it is not at all a wrong act because it is done to hamper the delivery of a physically challenged child, to base fairness between fetuses and newborns, as well as, establish the fetuses and newborns ability to be replaced (Singer, 2001).Fourth, Singers conviction is that killing a disabled or physically challenged infant is not wrong because he considers an infant as still not human (Singer, 2001). He says that since an infant does no t until now have the ability to think critically, still very much drug-addicted on the people surrounding him or her, and is not yet certain(p) of the occurrences around him or her, thus, the infant is not yet qualified to be labeled as a human being (Singer, 2001). The aforementioned characteristics are extremely crucial for Singer since he pushes that, parents should be given the correctly to decide if it would be better for the childs life to be taken away (Singer, 2001). Again, for Singer, letting an infant who is physically challenged die is not at all similar to killing an individual and that it is not at all a wrong act because it is done to help parents win the characteristics the infant have and that they should be given the right to decide for their children because infants are not yet aware, still dependent, and cannot yet think and decide for themselves (Singer, 2001).Last provided not least, Singer believes that killing a physically challenged infant is all right to prevent an infant to be born with hemophilia (Singer, 2001). His example is a case wherein a pregnant mother will have to expect for three months so as not to have a botch with hemophilia (Singer, 2001). Again, for Singer, letting an infant who is physically challenged die is not at all similar to killing an individual and that it is not at all a wrong act because it is done to make sure that such(prenominal)(prenominal) kind of waiting is worthy enough because it will produce a child without any medical condition (Singer, 2001).Meanwhile, I beg to differ with one of Peter Singers convictions. If for him, letting an infant who is physically challenged die is not at all similar to killing an individual and that it is not at all a wrong act because it is done to save the child from living an exceedingly unhappy life, then he might as well re-think about it (Singer, 2001). For example, even if the best state to my objection is the fact that Severe Spina Bifida is incurable at th e moment, this should not result in a final decision that the child be killed.In the low place, there are available therapies to manage such a condition, for instance, certain rehabilitations to motivate progress and hamper speedy worsening of the condition. Besides, there are several new researches that are ongoing with regards to how it may be managed. Besides, whos to say that a disabled or physically challenged child will be exceedingly unhappy? Countless agreeable things can happen, except only if we resort and stick to current research, positive thinking, and our morals. On a final note, to assume that a disabled child will tour out to be very unhappy if he or she lives with such a condition is really unreasonable, thus, to kill a disabled infant for that simple reason is way wrong as well.ReferencesSinger, P. (2001). Moral Maze. Retrieved defect 4, 2007 fromhttp//www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/20010211.htmWill Durant Foundation. (n.d.). A Will Durant Glossary of Philosophi cal and ForeignWords. Retrieved contact 4, 2007 from http//www.willdurant.com/glossary.htm