And do you suspect the same to be true of the abortion advocates in this case? Are abortion advocates somehow less suspect in your view and are more inclined to honesty? On which side of the issue does your skepticism originate? And don't say you have no bias.
It’s the anti-abortion advocates that are bringing the issue up in face of conventional thinking that there is no cause and effect. (Notice that I said “cause and effect”, not “link”.) Therefore, it’s the anti-abortion, not the pro-abortion rights advocates that are promoting something extraordinary and attempting to change conventional wisdom. It’s the anti-abortion advocates that initiated this. Therefore, seeing it for what it is (or may be), of course opposition to this is going to be led or at least joined in by pro-abortion rights people.
Therefore, the motives and primary agenda behind the opposition to this fraud (or possible fraud) are not as primary an issue as those of its promoters. In my eyes, I’d never be persuaded to take a “morally superior” course from someone who commits what I see as a fraud in its promotion. I’d immediately question the validity of everything else that he said.
The same suspicions are valid for those promoting other issues.
- Radical environmentalist spend more time opposing capitalism than studying chemistry and biology.
- Those promoting redirecting our military at this time to focus on Korea spend more time protesting any military campaign than studying the Asian threat.
The motives of those opposing their transparent agenda are not the issue in any of these examples. The agenda of these ideologues are very transparent, and their sabotaging any moral credibility they may have had.