- Nov 28, 2011
- 42,886
- 16,037
- 2,250
To quote the article -[["However, we never meant to suggest that after-birth abortion should become legal. This was not made clear enough in the paper. Laws are not just about rational ethical arguments, because there are many practical, emotional, social aspects that are relevant in policy making (such as respecting the plurality of ethical views, peoples emotional reactions etc). But we are not policy makers, we are philosophers, and we deal with concepts, not with legal policy.]]‘After-birth abortion’: Can they be serious? - She The People - The Washington Post
Two ethicists in the Journal of Medical Ethics.
This is the road pro-lifers knew was coming.
I ask how could they even have thought something like this, in order to suggest this kind of thing at all for a debate ? To think it is to have some sort of agreeing with such thoughts in order to come up with such a thought to begin with (get help quickly), and so they need others to jump in and help them understand whether or not their thoughts on this level are evil or not so evil or just downright evil (pick one of the three), because there is no other choices to pick from in such a thing.