KILL unwanted or disabled babies at birth as they are not a real person'

[Alan Fry]

Originally Posted by django47

I also respect you and your opinion, just think, if we all thought the same and had the same opinions on different subjects, it would be really boring.
I am not religious, or believe in anything and go to church, but I will defend the next guys freedom to believe in, and practice whatever he/ she chooses.
I was very lucky to be born and raised in a democratic land where a person is free to pray to any god he/ she wishes, or no god if that's their choice. Just so long as their beliefs doesn't interfere with or harm anyone else. I'm 65 this year and I can honestly say that my policy in life has always been to treat my fellow man the way I expect to be treated myself.( i may have slipped up once or twice in all them years, but in genral thats what I believe is the correct way to live).
Animals are my soft spot, i have had a bank direct debit in favour of the RSPCA for quite a few years now. Animals can't speak up for themselves and the RSPCA gets sod all from the government and have to rely on donations. Animal cruelty totally breaks my heart and if I've got anything when I 'pop me clogs', they can bury me in the back garden and iif theirs anything left, they need it more than my kids who I've not seen for 25-30 years.
Peace be with you man !
Michael (django47)

I agree with you on the fact the world has many different opinions. Also while I do believe in religion (Sikhism). I am not a very religious person. I am proud to live in a country like the UK. I also treat all humans and animals as equals

Peace be with you as well

P.S. Would you mind telling me what happened to your kids (you do not have to answer this question)

[downquark1]

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/...i-and-minerva/

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by downquark1

http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/...i-and-minerva/

We are really sorry that many people, who do not share the background of the intended audience for this article, felt offended, outraged, or even threatened. We apologise to them, but we could not control how the message was promulgated across the internet and then conveyed by the media. In fact, we personally do not agree with much of what the media suggest we think. ...

There is a lesson here, especially for those who respond to media headlines without bothering to check the facts.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

There is a lesson here, especially for those who respond to media headlines without bothering to check the facts.

Well you could argue the contary too.

Well lets look at it from another perspective policies derived from brainstorming and think tanks. Often a early forms of those policies are dropped in the open to testing the water off the ideoligy of its views. Once idea brought up into the fold its then logical to test the consensus of opinion of experts and public consensus.

Not actually saying this piece will see years down the line such contraversial policy would be law. Now what would happened if this did get in media got support at somepoint rightly or wrongly madcap party down the road would latched onto such thoughts thats why these very dangerous thought provoking views should been kept inhouse.

The notion they shocked it got the media, tv, web to talk about it is stupidly naive. It was bound to happen there paper from the ofset should made it more clear what they saying in this blog. Maybe they wanted the media exposure either way it dont possibly explain away why they did not make the notion clearer in the journal.

Actually after the blog more puzzled why it really need to be in medical journal. To me thats my view rightly/wrongly a reach to find out if it actually a consensus of like minds.

Some very good excellent replys in that blog.

[downquark1]

But then you leave no room for pure academic discussion.

[TheNorm]

Originally Posted by mertle

...The notion they shocked it got the media, tv, web to talk about it is stupidly naive. ....

Originally Posted by downquark1

But then you leave no room for pure academic discussion.

Exactly. The article was published in one of the British Medical Journals, which is why the authors said:

We are really sorry that many people, who do not share the background of the intended audience for this article, felt offended, outraged, or even threatened.

There must be room for academic discussion, but in the age of the interwebs those who seek to generate that discussion must be aware that they can no longer assume that the intended audience and the actual audience are the same, or even broadly similar. I agree with Mertle, it was very naive of them to be shocked when their paper achieved such wide coverage.

This is not to say they shouldn't be allowed to write such things, but rather in our information age they should, while writing, have a strategy in mind for answering questions that may then come from outside of their academic ivory tower.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

There must be room for academic discussion, but in the age of the interwebs those who seek to generate that discussion must be aware that they can no longer assume that the intended audience and the actual audience are the same, or even broadly similar. I agree with Mertle, it was very naive of them to be shocked when their paper achieved such wide coverage.

This is not to say they shouldn't be allowed to write such things, but rather in our information age they should, while writing, have a strategy in mind for answering questions that may then come from outside of their academic ivory tower.

One wonders if any questions were asked of them, or if perhaps some irresponsible hack just ran with the story without asking for clarification. I don't think academic papers should stoop to the lowest common denominator just in case the press picks up on them. They'll become impossible to read for the target audience.

I'm not suggesting the contents of the paper itself should be any less rigorous. Just that the authors may need to become a little more media savvy. At the very least, be aware how what they are saying will sound to an 'uneducated' ear.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris

I'm not suggesting the contents of the paper itself should be any less rigorous. Just that the authors may need to become a little more media savvy. At the very least, be aware how what they are saying will sound to an 'uneducated' ear.

I thought they reacted very well with the blog post that Downquark linked to. What more would you expect?

[mertle]

Chris stole me thunder yes internet things like that could be used often seen the medical journal kicking about in NHS, doctors. It will be read by those not in the profesion.

Just think it was naive on there part to not to make it clear what they said in the blog then it certainly would not caused as much storm.

Nobody denying them there thought provoking views just feel they need to do it with more tact.

Certain subjects being disgussed should be away from public ears or clearly made aware its not something profesionals would think to inact. Else we could go into very dangerous ground. Could you imagine what would happen if politician talked about ethnic clensing in political journal not for public eyes it ended in mainstream news. We get backtrack very much as these doctors his political career would be dead.

Its dangerous ground to assume it will be only professionals read the piece.

[Alan Fry]

I think we can all agree that the subject matter in this report will not be up for dicussion for some time