No offence, whether meant or not, taken; only an attempt to keep the discussions on this OLO to the point, free of irrelevances expressing only personal insecurities in one’s beliefs or unbeliefs, religious or anti-religious.

George I think the beliefs of the author in this case are quite relevant and from what I can see with some help from Google Dr. Lachlan Dunjey has a strong belief in an invisble friend and is quite active in opposing same sex marriage and abortion.

It is possible that his beliefs on those topics are drawn entirely from sound research and not influenced by any belief in an invisble friend but that does seem a big stretch.

Others have already pointed to the flaws from an evidence base on the claims regarding a link between cancer and induced abortion so it's reasonable to explore why the author would push that particular line.

I'll go with occam's razor on this one.

R0bert

R0bert,

The author of the article is “pro-life”, others are “pro-choice”. There are disdainful references to the first (an invisible friend or man in the sky), and one could (and, unfortunately, often does) concoct equally unflattering references to the latter.

The author seems to have preferences for a certain religious world view when expressing her opinions although she does not state it explicitly (the same as she probably has preferences for a certain language - English?). Her world view orientation - unless stated explicitly as an argument - should not be relevant when discussing which of the two “pro-“ positions are more or less beneficial to the mother and/or potential child, or - perhaps equally importantly - to the society, or to what we call the West, in the long run.

Both the "pro-" positions have their extremist wings of adherents, but not all are extremists, again in both cases. So arguments in both directions not ridiculing or condemning the other position, are more likely to arrive at an arrangement that is somehow workable even if not everybody will be happy with it.

George I'd suggest a bit of background reading on Dr Lachlan Dunjey. The term extremist is hard to qualify, I won't use it but the material I could find suggests that the authors belief in an invisble friend is very relevant to the approach to this issue.

I don't hold any respect for all the feints and spin used by the anti-gay marriage, anti-choice (the use of the term pro-life pretty much implies opponents are anti-life) crowds to push their agenda. Likewise some of the similar tactics used by the opposing lobbies.

If they have good evidence or a good case for their position it should be put, the case advocates for both the anti-same sex marriage and anti-choice positions as I've seen them is not compelling and all to often is contrived excuses to oppose something that can reasonably be viewed as being opposed because it goes against their religious beliefs.

R0bert

R0bert,

>>a bit of background reading on Dr Lachlan Dunjey<<

Sorry, but I can’t say it more clearly that in my opinion one should debate the issue, what the article says, not the author’s background. On this we obviously disagree.

George, if an author has made a point worth debating I agree to a point. When it appears to be built on a false premise then it becomes relevant to go beyond just whats said. I generally like to give some thought to not just whats beingnsaid but why.

I doubt many of us ever truly just judge on just whats said. The motives of those pushing an agenda matter.

R0bert