View Single Post
  #7  
Old 03-01-2012, 09:12 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,479
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VCURamFan View Post
Nope. Peter Singer has been promoting this for years. The man's a special kinda "smart".
This wording:

Quote:
While accepting that many people would disagree with their arguments, he wrote: “The goal of the Journal of Medical Ethics is not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument based on widely accepted premises.”
Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, he added: “This “debate” has been an example of “witch ethics” - a group of people know who the witch is and seek to burn her. It is one of the most dangerous human tendencies we have. It leads to lynching and genocide. Rather than argue and engage, there is a drive is to silence and, in the extreme, kill, based on their own moral certainty. That is not the sort of society we should live in.”
He said the journal would consider publishing an article positing that, if there was no moral difference between abortion and killing newborns, then abortion too should be illegal.
I don't know....I just got the impression that this guy might be playing the devil's advocate.

And this:

Quote:
"What these young colleagues are spelling out is what we would be the inevitable end point of a road that ethical philosophers in the States and Australia have all been treading for a long time and there is certainly nothing new."
Sounds kinda like they may be just trying to show the public where this road is leading with this issue. Whether it is their intention or not, it most certainly will wake up some that are neutral on the subject.
Reply With Quote