Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 29, 1999)
” EDITOR Josh Funk OPINION EDITOR Mark Baldridge t EDITORIAL BOARD Lindsay Young Jessica Fargen Samuel McKewon Cliff Hicks Kimberly Sweet Quotes OF THE WEEK Anything that goes “bang” is illegal in Lincoln. Tom Casady, Lincoln Police Chief, on the fireworks ordinance *We just weren’t the normal Nebraska team today. Eric Crouch, NU quarterback, on Nebraska s third annual loss to Texas It’s a good thing for (teachers) to have midterm evaluations. But a lot of it’s got to be students asking teach ers to do them. Beth Lee, chairwoman of the Association of Students of the University of Nebraska’s Academic Committee Some professors are interested in feedback period and do not need official tools. Kevin Smith, associate professor of political science, on midterm evalua tions Hell. O.C. Love-Wade, describing his life with sickle-cell anemia Baby, Pm so sorry this happened. Deputy Reggie Fluty, to Matthew Shepard, moments before the latter s death in 1998 Competition improves quality. Maybe the DN needs a jump-start. Will Norton, dean of the College of Journalism and Mass Communications, on the proposal to place national newspapers in residence halls. It is easy to see what is wrong with the U.S. participation in the U.N. Glenn Freeman, in a debate marking United Nations Day You have to throw away all cares of how you look and go to total aban donment. Paul Clausen, who plays Munkustrap in the musical “Cats ” Tomorrow I could change my mind and be a priest. Danny Curtis, freelance artist He has a knack for making big plays and a nose for the football. Junior safety Clint Finley on return man Joe Walker They have a brain about the size of a peanut. Zoo representative Randy Sheer on the rogue emu If it isn’t crumbling gargoyles, it’s pigeon droppings eating into the stone or a leak in the roof. Francois Goven, a national heritage director at the Culture Ministry of France, on the upkeep of Notre Dame Cathedral Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials are the opinions of the Fall 1999 Daily Nebraskan. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, its employees, its student body or the University of Nebraska Board of Regents. A column is solely the opinion of its author. The Board of Regents serves as publisher of the Daily Nebraskan; policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. The UNL Publications Board, established by the regents, supervises the production of the paper. According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its student employees. Letter Policy The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor and guest columns, but does not guarantee their publication. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or reject any material submitted. Submitted material becomes property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be published. Those who submit letters must identify themselves by name, year in school, major and/or group affiliation, if any. Submit material to: Daily Nebraskan, 20 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St. Lincoln, NE. 68588-0448. E-mail: letters@unlinfo.unl.edu. Oberrneyer^s VIEW ■Th^wiotm joo I ^Sw^biSd wS* MBSSI m« 1 L AMTAOOMIST op ggg^^\ VAILY N£8RAskan!jA E^jjepi h-^— Abortion on demand So much for the American dream -r-sS With “quality-of-life” pushing its way to the forefront of political dis course, it’s time you give some thought to yours. Quality of life, that is. You’re thinking about how to improve it - I know. What’s the plan? Hot shot job? “Finding” yourself? These aren’t silly questions. I was just about to tell you that you better prepare to prove you have a good quality of life, otherwise you’ve had it. Otherwise, you die. In theory. Peter Singer, baby-killer extraor dinaire, was recently appointed to a prestigious bio-ethics position in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. So what? So ... he is a distinguished crack pot who thinks a happy cat has more of a right to life than an infant or a dis abled person. No joke. His despicable opinion is rooted in the subjective “quality” of one’s life. 1 his guy, who has no appreciation for human-ness, has been given a plat form to advance these horrific ideas. Singer is also a fierce advocate of ani mal rights and seeks to elevate the sta tus of animals by proving that they are personally autonomous and have a notably good quality of life. The irony is just too much. Whether the masterminds at Princeton mean to or not, they lend validity to Singer’s death ethics by accepting him into their ivied halls. They chose him “based on merit.” Advocating death is strange merit. So, the right to life hinges on one’s quality of life. If the quality of your life isn’t so good, make room for someone with a better life. Furthermore, if your existence decreases the quality of the life of oth ers - off with your head! Singer contends that infants have no claim to life because they aren’t self-conscious beings. In essence, he asserts that infants are inferior life forms. What’s more, he withholds the right to life from adults whose mental capacity is not up to par. He deems it appropriate to kill infants and disabled people, saying they lead “a life not worth living.” He believes it morally acceptable to kill an infant with Down’s syn drome in hopes of “replacing” it. “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 ot a happier lire tor the second. Therefore, if the killing of the hemo philiac infant has no adverse effect on others, it would ... be right to kill him,” Singer writes in “Practical Ethics.” Loathsome as his ideas are, Singer is not a fringe thinker. Oh no. His util itarian ideas of maximizing happiness for the greatest amount of people are gaining support. Unfortunately, Singer’s ideas are in step with Nazis’. In World War II, Hitler said some people were “useless eaters” and “lives not worth living.” Sound familiar? This debate leads to a discussion of which lives are valuable. The value of a life is a ratio of the quality of that life. Even quality of life is relative to the happiness of others. Who defines the concepts of hap piness, personal autonomy and quali ty of life ... the government? Look at federally funded Planned rarentnooa. Margaret banger (i.e. tne Grim Reaper), founder of Planned Parenthood, believed “the most mer ciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Sanger was a leader in the eugen ics movement - dedicated to improv ing the genetic code to make “better” human beings. Her book “Women and the New Race” provides insight into her own Naziesque ideas. Leaders in the eugenics move ment conclude that certain races are inferior to whites. Sanger herself believed Jews, Hispanics and blacks were “human weeds” that would, by reproduction, “bring a dead weight of human waste into the world.” It may seem like a big jump - Singer and Sanger to Nazism. But they’re just taking us down a road that’s already been paved. This centu ry has already seen the “weeding out” of infants and the disabled. Between 1939 and 1945, Germany disposed of more than 20,000 people with the euthanasia progrartl. It allegedly all started with Baby Knauer. In 1925 a survey showed more than 70 percent of German parents of disabled children would agree to the killing of their child. In 1938, Baby Knauer was born blind, missing an arm and a leg. Mr. Knauer wrote a let ter requesting that Hitler allow him to dispose of his son. Dr. Karl Rudolph Brandt, who was later hanged at Nuremberg for crimes against humanity, was dis patched to oversee the “procedure” - a procedure Singer and Sanger support. Upon successful completion of the disposal of the disabled child, Hitler mainstreamed the infanticide of all disabled infants. Not long after, the effort was expanded to adults. The Nazi alarm is sounding. Abortion advocates justify proce dures like partial birth abortion and live birth abortion by asking what kind of futures “unwanted” children will have. The Senate is currently debating a bill dealing with physician assisted suicide. The argument goes something like “their quality of life is so bad ... it’s a life not worth living.” The elitist ideas of Margaret Sanger are validated by her legacy in Planned Parenthood, which hails her as a visionary tor the rights ot women rather than exposing her as a racist. The ideas of Peter Singer are vali dated by his position at Princeton. Singer mentors students who will inevitably echo his tune right into everyday America as tomorrow’s doc tors, lawyers and public servants. Hitler showed us the horror that comes with assigning value to humans based on able-body and race. Our grandparents hoped history wouldn’t repeat itself. They thought they’d never again be witness to any thing so horrific. With visionaries like Sanger and Singer, it looks like we’re doomed to repeat the Nazi death march. Jessica Flainagain is a senior English and philosophy major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist