3 ms·

This article is terribly manipulative. If there are valid points to be made here, I'm not going to be convinced by an essay that is full of phrases like "an ivo

This article is terribly manipulative. If there are valid points to be made here, I'm not going to be convinced by an essay that is full of phrases like "an ivory tower decision made by a bunch of men playing God at Harvard". The cited sources are either questionable (as in the website with the statue depicting crucifiction dominating the banner) or do not support the author's conclusions (as in the NEJM article).

TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
The big detection of 'bullshit' was at the end of the article, in 2 places. 1. " As to all the rest, I cannot but conclude that they are nothing but legal euthanasia, and should be opposed by anyone who identifies themselves as pro-life." Pro-life? As in Christian anti-abortion buzzword? That's awfully strange to see in a "fact based policy paper". 2. Dr. Paul Byrne, a Christian doctor trying to raise public awareness of this issue. (links to renewamerica.com ) So now we get to the root of the matter. Non-religious (cough CHRISTIAN) superPAC sponsoring messages. It even mentions of a strong Christian bent towards policy discussion. I dismiss this whole article with extreme prejudice.