>Now, I admit I don't always have my facts straight, but in my following of >this >case, it was my understanding the the parents and the Catholic church >believed that God's will should prevail, meaning that they were leaving it in >God's hands the fate of both wee ones. > >Regardless of what did happen, it is a gross distortion of Stephen to suggest >that the religious authorities (who are you talking about here?) were >unanimous in CONCLUDING THAT BOTH SHOULD DIE. Where the heck do >you get off making such a statement? > >Unless you can provide a statement that clearly indicates these religious >authorities all took a vote that very clearly stated "both kids should >die," I >would suggest you revise your statement.
It was a clear (unanimous among medical authorities AFAIK) that if the twins were not separated that both would die. The religious authorities may not have stated it in these terms, but they did not deny the medical implications and recommended a course of action that would result in the deaths of both infants. The fact that they did not say the words "both infants should die" does not change this. * PAUL K. BRANDON [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Psychology Dept Minnesota State University, Mankato * * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph 507-389-6217 * * http://www.mankato.msus.edu/dept/psych/welcome.html * --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
