Yet again, Peter Singer has provided the anti-life philosophical backdrop to liberals’ political arguments. Singer is one of the most profoundly anti-life philosophers out there: he believes that it is ok not only to kill unborn children, but even infants because “killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person.” Now, he writes to defend rationing of health care and argue that it is laudatory “to apply monetary considerations to saving lives.”

We already know that the current health care plan, without an explicit ban on taxpayer-funded abortion, will drastically increase the threat to millions of unborn Americans, but Singer explains why it will also threaten the elderly and the disabled. Whereas Singer supports such a health plan, we pro-lifers know that these threats are morally abhorrent.

Rationing, he explains, puts a monetary value on each human life. He calculates that value at about $5 million. Even more astonishing, he claims that a teenager is “worth” fourteen 85-year olds. And what about disabled people? Well, according to Singer, they, like the elderly, are worth less. A system that treats people as commodities will only encourage the culture of death in America.

Although Singer denies it, you can never put a price on human life, and nobody wants the government deciding how much each individual life is worth. As we pro-lifers know, every life is precious.

Read Peter Singer's article here.