With the latter of the conventions coming to a close tonight, and, more importantly, me not wanting to stay up late to crank out another dog-related post, I thought it might be useful to dust off this gem from about six months ago. It’s worth a read as we ramp up for the hellish days of the last two months of a presidential election cycle.
I hate to interrupt a string of lighthearted cultural observations, sports references, and stories about awkward moments in the annals of entertainment history with something more serious—but here goes.
A fascinating journal article came to my attention a couple of weeks ago. The piece was remarkable in its content and unintentionally provided me with a helpful (if unnecessary) reminder about the current state of political discourse in the United States.
The paper, “After-birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?” appeared in the Journal of Medical Ethics on February 23rd. The title is appropriately suggestive of the subject matter. The crux of the argument advanced by authors Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva is that, since abortion is accepted (or at least legal) in many circumstances wholly unconnected to the health of the baby or the mother, and since a newborn baby has not yet achieved true “personhood,” it therefore…
View original post 3,382 more words