So smh_23, what other artificial hormones besides the morning after pill do NOT kill an innocent child?
Your rebuttals directed to me are nothing more than jumping aboard someone elseβs ideas and touting the same rhetoric. Any original ideas? In addition, I will believe an opinion piece that wants to save the unborn compared to another piece that wants to profit from the death of innocent unborn children.
Just as an aside, why was science originally developed?
oldstyle00:
So your rebuttal to smh posting peer reviewed research articles on the subject is to post from lifenews, which clearly has an agenda and they are getting their information from the NCB center (national catholic bioethics center). Neither of which can be considered as a reputable science resource. Looking at their stance on vaccinations and the use of conversion therapy for homosexuals was enough for me to stop reading.
The whole ncb center article is nothing more then an opinion piece using no actual scientific data. The whole article is purporting and the authors come to conclusions that arenβt backed by research. I can understand why smh has checked himself out of this debate your grasping at straws if you are using information like this as scientific. Nothing in this is peer reviewed, published in a scientific paper so other scientists can dissect the research. Its nothing more then a couple of authors coming to their own conclusions using very little science and with an agenda.