Comments on: Defending Vellacott, part II http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/11/26/defending-vellacott-part-ii/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:25:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jordan http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/11/26/defending-vellacott-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4705 Jordan Sat, 28 Nov 2009 01:38:01 +0000 http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=7554#comment-4705 The Chinese, who are decidedly pro-abortion, have released a study that proposes a link between breast cancer and abortion. Since the issue isn't as politically-charged there, the study is worth some attention, IMO. The Chinese, who are decidedly pro-abortion, have released a study that proposes a link between breast cancer and abortion. Since the issue isn’t as politically-charged there, the study is worth some attention, IMO.

]]> By: Suricou Raven http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/11/26/defending-vellacott-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4702 Suricou Raven Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:02:59 +0000 http://www.prowomanprolife.org/?p=7554#comment-4702 Having looked through the contriversial comments... I think either the reporters have butchered them a bit, or he is just really bad at discussing abortion. The views he was trying to express would be suited to a short essay, but they just can't be expressed in the one-line soundbite format that modern politics demands. He tried, he failed, and the result was making what was potentially a perfectly good argument sound ridiculous. He also made the mistake of mentioning breast cancer. He got away with it this time, it appears, but the usual response to that claim is the ritualised waving of papers on both sides by people who have no ability to read them followed by accusations flying each way regarding science distorted for political gain. Having looked through the contriversial comments… I think either the reporters have butchered them a bit, or he is just really bad at discussing abortion. The views he was trying to express would be suited to a short essay, but they just can’t be expressed in the one-line soundbite format that modern politics demands. He tried, he failed, and the result was making what was potentially a perfectly good argument sound ridiculous.

He also made the mistake of mentioning breast cancer. He got away with it this time, it appears, but the usual response to that claim is the ritualised waving of papers on both sides by people who have no ability to read them followed by accusations flying each way regarding science distorted for political gain.

]]>