It does, particularly about late term abortions which I think is good that it is being discussed but it's not like it's being "Let's do it!". Hell, my interpretation of this is that they want us to really rethink the validity of late term abortions and stuff. It seems that if you don't take it on absolute face value (which a lot of people are) then it seems to go like...
- Yeah, it's a bioethics and law paper published by The Journal of Medical Ethics which is owned by the British Medical Journal group - it's not like it's a cheap ezine, it's a very prestigious journal which engages with many contemporary debates regarding medicine, ethics and laws - not just abortion, but things like euthanasia or stem cell research. The editors started getting random abuse and threats after they published that article so they wrote a blog post about why they did it.
The newspaper article is so inflammatory and childish (because you have to be extremely naive or malicious to think that medical ethics are one of the 'world's most unnecessary occupations' - medical ethics dictates what kind of medical treatment you and the rest of humanity gets, it's extremely important) I'm having a hard time taking it seriously, but the original article raises some interesting questions, of course.
abortion = infanticide, foetus=baby therefore if you support abortion then you have to support the murder of babies!
It does seem like the ultimate pro-life argument in a sense.
March 14th, 2012 at 10:49am