The International Abortion Industry
[politicalsoldier.net says: This is the moral vacuum that the liberal-left inhabit. They want to save African babies from starving, yet they rejoice that European babies are ripped apart in the womb! In 60s America many pacifists joined the Pro Life cause because they were outraged that blood could be spilt in this way... of course the organised [Kosher-led] left has now made the ripping apart of millions of innocent - many working class - children as their credo. Hard to see where social justice and killing babies - rather than say, supporting poor families to have more children, tomorrows builders, plumbers, scientists, bus drivers etc. - meets, unless it's just that the abortionists hate life]:
OXFAM DONOR EXPOSED AS A PEDDLER OF DEATH!
Peter Singer, who believes it is moral to slaughter 'selected' new born babies, was present on Iconoclasts, Radio 4, last night (06.09.06). He defends animal rights, but supports abortion, euthanasia and infanticide; being 'pro-abortion’ not ‘pro-choice’. Singer was once quoted saying, "Mental defectives do not have a right to life, and therefore might be killed for food if we should develop a taste for human flesh, or for the purpose of scientific experimentation".
Throughout his comments, he said that he donates 10% of his money to Oxfam. By accepting his money, Oxfam are (possibly unwittingly) betraying their own statement of Purpose.
This statement speaks of "working to overcome suffering", "build(ing) a just and safer world", "saving lives", "empower(ing) people", believing that "everyone has the right to life and security...right to be heard, the right to equity", ensuring "everyone's rights are fulfilled and protected", "all human lives" having "equal value", everyone having "fundamental rights" which "must be recognised and upheld at all times" and deploring "unequal power relations based on...disability".
All of these commendable aims are blatantly contravened by Singer's support for abortion, euthanasia and infanticide. As an ethical charity, Oxfam must decide if their statement of purpose is worth more than Singer's money. If he is a member of Oxfam, his membership ought to be terminated and his donations rejected.
LifeLeague would be loathed to launch a campaign against Oxfam, but this kind of moral outrage is clearly unacceptable in a civilised society and must be answered.