After birth 'abortions'??!!
#48

Oh wait, the authors name is Francesca Minerva, my mistake.

#49

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.
Oh wait, the authors name is Francesca Minerva, my mistake.


#53

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.
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.

#54

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.
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.

#55

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.
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.

#57

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.
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.
Well, it's not working on me. I can see through the BS.

#58

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.

#59

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.

#60

As I already pointed out, the woman is a follower of Richard Dawkins and therefore, most probably an atheist. Hardly a likely member of a right-wing pro-life movement, is she?
Anyway, when have you ever been able to see through bullshit, FFS?
Anyway, when have you ever been able to see through bullshit, FFS?
