A perusal of murder and suicide statistics—even the fact that such statistics exist—suggests the conclusion that there may, in fact, exist some people opposed to life; sometimes their own, sometimes that of others.
That’s irrelevant to the point that incogn is making, though, which is that you can’t make that inference from the fact that a label called “pro-life” exists because it’s rhetoric. I’m willing to believe that the label “evidence-based medicine” is also rhetoric, but I don’t actually know that yet; I would first have to know what doctors were doing before EBM became a thing.
Homeopathy? Crystal Therapy? Color Therapy? A quick Google search for “alternate medicine” should produce all sorts of non-evidence-based medical philosophies.
Only in the sense that the term “pro-life” implies than there exist people opposed to life.
Opposed to all life? No. Opposed to specific, nonsentient life when weighed against the mother’s choice? Yes.
pro-life is an intentional misuse of ontology.
A perusal of murder and suicide statistics—even the fact that such statistics exist—suggests the conclusion that there may, in fact, exist some people opposed to life; sometimes their own, sometimes that of others.
That’s irrelevant to the point that incogn is making, though, which is that you can’t make that inference from the fact that a label called “pro-life” exists because it’s rhetoric. I’m willing to believe that the label “evidence-based medicine” is also rhetoric, but I don’t actually know that yet; I would first have to know what doctors were doing before EBM became a thing.
And how good the followers of EBM are at actually being evidence based as opposed Straw Vulcan.
Homeopathy? Crystal Therapy? Color Therapy? A quick Google search for “alternate medicine” should produce all sorts of non-evidence-based medical philosophies.