Considering that pursuing what seemed to him to be science has in the very recent past led Link to voice support for eugenic abortion, perhaps we should encourage and nurture this new development in his thinking.
Take a break from breathing the rarefied air up there, and dismount your high horse. Join the rest of us in the ditch. The scientific community and the vast majority of Americans support eugenic abortion. The fact that you are not aware of that does not make me a monster.
Ah yes. Isn't morality by popular vote grand?
No Nathan. You made a statement that I came to an erroneous conclusion by following what only seemed to be science.
Obviously it is you who only seems to be following science as I have quite nicely illustrated. Once the facts abandoned you the only thing you had left was to question my morality.
I still don't understand the relevance of any of this to whether or not it's morally excusable to abort a pregnancy because the baby would be slow.
There is no relevance to the morality. That's the point. You accused me of only seeming to follow what I thought was science. When I illustrated that my opinoin was informed by and in line with the guidelines laid out by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists you stopped talking about science and just harped on about morality. I am right on the science and you are wrong. End of story. As far as morality... well I can't link to morality. I can't go into a lab and produce morality. I can't get the United Nations, the Palastinians, and Isreal to come to a consenous opinion about morality. If you are not informed about the scientific facts and are unable to carry on a conversation about science then there really isn't much we can accomplish here. All that will be left is two people arguing about who is moral and who is immoral.
That is an hilariously inadequate evrsion of scientism you're paddling, dude. What scientifically provable reason do I have to not come to your house, kill the men, rape the women and sell the children into slavery?
