This is in reference to a story, printed Sept. 13, about a presentation by Peter Singer at Bates College. I did not “blast” the professor, as stated; rather, I took passionate exception to his remarks and proposals.

I believe that a law is sacred, precedent-based and trumps everything else. Euthanasia and assisted suicide subordinate law to other goals. The Holocaust and the gulag were consequences of legal subordination; in the U.S.S.R. to “economic equality,” in Nazi Germany to “racial purity.” Unspeakable crimes against humanity resulted.

If we relax timeless prohibitions against killing, the vulnerable or disenfranchised might be victimized. It happened in Russia, Germany and here.

In China, healthy prisoners are being executed without due process or for non-capital crimes. According to some human rights organizations, their organs are then sold or used to make cosmetic products. Since medicine now defines clinical death; might not the goal posts be altered for such “need”?

If, in pursuit of this secular humanist utopia by corrupting law, we succeed by progressively undermining the spiritual life and heritage of this country, how are we going to mold conduct and character, especially of the young, and channel behavior into constructive pursuits? What meaning can death, or life, then have?

Parents, schools, police and courts are overwhelmed; prisons overflow.

Scripture and history warn that nature is fallen. Law, as teacher, is redemptive. Or don’t we believe that anymore, either?

Paul Corrao, Auburn