Follow up to my last post. The UK Telegraph publishes today an article justifying infanticide. As I indicated in my previous post, there is no discussion at all of the medical facts of fetal development. Only this:
“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”
How much "value" is "some" value? At what point does society determine that the young individual who can be legally killed is "capable of attributing to her own existence" this undefined "value".
This is pure use of language to say nothing. And it comes from the science establishment, from the Journal of Medical Ethics at Oxford.
Any wonder why common decent folk don't trust the scientists?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Science Deniers
A label often attached to those who doubt either Darwinism or man-made global warming is “science-denier”. If one questions either the assumptions or the conclusions of either of those narratives, one is assumed to be anti-science, as if disagreeing with a conclusion was the same as losing all contact with reality. But I have to say in the dispute about a number of issues, I have a strong suspicion it is not really about the science. Why?
Because I have a pretty direct example of agendas driving conclusions in spite of evidence coming from the other side of the political and religious spectrum.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)