find it. You may not agree with that, either -- but it's different from your reading. Luis Pinheiro The paper is not appalling because of it's conclusion, but because of it's fundamental mistake. It proposes one outcome variable (termination) and one explanatory variable (psychological or other type of morbidity). By argumentative exclusion of other variables and by absence of measurement, a closed logical universe is created whereby rebuttal would be a scenario as hypothetical as the argument itself. This "phylosofical" freedom is so very academic in nature that it even enjoys the freedom of not being constrained to existing definitions. Such that abortion stops being in-utero and is sent ex-utero. I have done peer review of papers in epidemiology, but I do not feel tempted or dared by Professors Emeritus in addressing a construct, a simplistic world, explained by one variable, and where a relative measure of conflicting personal interest is turned absolute. I am sorry, it is not just the conclusion it's the rubbish argument. You missed the forest for the trees. ttp://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=6\\... Stefan Hansen Why do you refer to the editor as "Madame"? ttp://www.facebook.com/people/David-Pit\\... David Pittelli Perhaps the authors have demonstrated sufficient inhumanity as to subject themselves to after-birth abortion. At any rate, it doesn't take any more sophistry to say that those whose plans are inhumane lose all right to life than that newborns who have formulated no plans lose all right to life. I gather that if they had held prestigious chairs in "medical ethics" in