Baby I'm Doing You Wrong

By -

Slippery slopes, you say? They don't exist!

A year or so ago, I told a defender of legal abortion that his arguments, if accepted, imply the young babies could be killed by their parents for the exact same reason he argued fetuses could. "Outrageous!" I was told. "A smear tactic! No one would ever advocate that!"

But, of course, he, being a decent human being, just didn't want to go there: his arguments certainly did imply that newborns can be killed, and the "researchers" who wrote the paper discussed in the link above at least have the honesty to admit that.

But here is the really "humorous" bit from the article:

"The journal’s editor, Prof Julian Savulescu, director of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, said the article's authors had received death threats since publishing the article. He said those who made abusive and threatening posts about the study were 'fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.'"

Look, I am not in favor of threatening the authors of this revolting paper with death. But it is really something to see an advocate of infanticide call others "fanatics"!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more