|
Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 9926079)
I'm not going to waste my time convincing you that you're being manipulated when you obviously enjoy it so much. :lol:
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 9926083)
Oh bite me. :rolleyes:
|
Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer
(Post 9926086)
:blah:
|
Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer
(Post 9926075)
You believe they're using reverse psychology - it's your opinion, so please don't present it as fact.
Oh wait, the authors name is Francesca Minerva, my mistake. |
Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by kimilseung
(Post 9926102)
Well here is the wikipedia entry for "Francesco Minerva" , catholic bishop no less, and the paper was written from the grave, so divine intervention might be suspected!
Oh wait, the authors name is Francesca Minerva, my mistake. |
Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer
(Post 9926106)
:D It's Francesca, you numpty.
|
Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by kimilseung
(Post 9926110)
Are you on a one-line-read go-slow-work-to-rule today?
Anyway, according to her twitter page, Francesca Minerva is a follower of Richard Dawkins, so I hardly think she's a member of any right-wing, religious bunch. |
Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by Uncle Ebenezer
(Post 9926125)
Maybe ...
Anyway, according to her twitter page, Francesca Minerva is a follower of Richard Dawkins, so I hardly think she's a member of any right-wing, religious bunch. |
Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
Personally, I see two issues here. One is that this was presented as a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics. I suppose the reader has to make the decision if the writers of the paper were being serious or not, but I don't think it is something to be flippant about, irrespective about what horrible things are going on in far-flung lands. I don't have degrees of disagreement, I just disagree with something and I disagree with this paper being presented at all, regardless of the validity of the content.
The other issue is that this Blaze website may have used this article (sited under their 'Faith' section no less) as a propaganda tool against pro-choice minded people, or abortions or whatever. Again, whether this is a serious consideration or not is neither here nor there in my eyes - that it was presented at all and for this purpose is ridiculously bad form if you ask me. |
Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing
(Post 9926141)
Personally, I see two issues here. One is that this was presented as a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics. I suppose the reader has to make the decision if the writers of the paper were being serious or not, but I don't think it is something to be flippant about, irrespective about what horrible things are going on in far-flung lands. I don't have degrees of disagreement, I just disagree with something and I disagree with this paper being presented at all, regardless of the validity of the content.
The other issue is that this Blaze website may have used this article (sited under their 'Faith' section no less) as a propaganda tool against pro-choice minded people, or abortions or whatever. Again, whether this is a serious consideration or not is neither here nor there in my eyes - that it was presented at all and for this purpose is ridiculously bad form if you ask me. |
Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by SultanOfSwing
(Post 9926141)
Personally, I see two issues here. One is that this was presented as a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics. I suppose the reader has to make the decision if the writers of the paper were being serious or not, but I don't think it is something to be flippant about, irrespective about what horrible things are going on in far-flung lands. I don't have degrees of disagreement, I just disagree with something and I disagree with this paper being presented at all, regardless of the validity of the content.
The other issue is that this Blaze website may have used this article (sited under their 'Faith' section no less) as a propaganda tool against pro-choice minded people, or abortions or whatever. Again, whether this is a serious consideration or not is neither here nor there in my eyes - that it was presented at all and for this purpose is ridiculously bad form if you ask me. |
Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by kimilseung
(Post 9926152)
I see no problem in outlandish propositions being discussed, Such arguments can help in defining lines in the sand.
Not much point having a Journal of Things Already Agreed Upon. |
Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 9926049)
And many more reasonable and humane practices have come out of intellectual debate.
You do realize this "article" is most likely a propaganda tool used by the pro-life faction in order to get people whipped into a frenzy, right? Nobody is actually considering killing new born babies.
Originally Posted by Leslie
(Post 9926064)
My point is that they're using reverse psychology on people and it is working. Obviously.
Nobody actually believes in killing newborn babies. |
Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by kimilseung
(Post 9926152)
I see no problem in outlandish propositions being discussed, Such arguments can help in defining lines in the sand. I am surprised that someone would propose it without expectation of notoriety or rhetorical advantage.
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 9926156)
Surely that is the whole point of ethical discussions.
Not much point having a Journal of Things Already Agreed Upon. If Hitler, being the powerful orator and debater he was, had had an ethical discussion on eugenics and won the debate, gassing the Jews would have been OK. |
Re: After birth 'abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by Sally Redux
(Post 9926156)
Surely that is the whole point of ethical discussions.
Not much point having a Journal of Things Already Agreed Upon. If someone wants to make a pro-life argument then why not a scientific argument that demonstrates that meaningful life starts at conception? Why either side should have to resort to rhetoric or progaganda is just sad, IMO. Horses for courses, I suppose. |
Re: 'After birth abortions'??!!
Originally Posted by paranoidandroid
(Post 9926163)
Yes.
Well, it's not working on me. I can see through the BS. Anyway, when have you ever been able to see through bullshit, FFS? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 6:48 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.