A Quote by Michael J. Knowles

For decades, the pro-life movement has focused on scientific evidence and ethical arguments. — © Michael J. Knowles
For decades, the pro-life movement has focused on scientific evidence and ethical arguments.
I should have known better. Pro-life arguments are now based on scientific evidence and the pro-choice arguments are not. That is a cultural, historical fact.
Social conservatives have been involved in the pro-life movement for decades.
The pro-life movement is and has been led by women for decades. The history of the movement shows this, despite the current narrative about men 'controlling' or making laws about women's bodies.
As pro-life advocates continue to expose the scientific and ethical reality of abortion, we must also console the millions of Americans who carry the heavy burden of an enormous sin.
[T]here's a genuine disconnect between the anti-choice movement and people who identify as 'pro-life' but aren't in the movement. ...[S]aying you're 'pro-life' is more about marking you as a member of a tribe, pledging fealty to your faith or to your identity as a 'conservative,' for a lot of people.
Only in America can you be Pro-Death Penalty, Pro-War, Pro-Unmanned Drone Bombs, Pro-Nuclear Weapons, Pro-Guns, Pro-Torture, Pro-Land Mines, AND still call yourself 'Pro-Life.'
I have worked for three decades as a staunch advocate of building a 'big tent' party that includes both pro-choice and pro-life Republicans.
I have worked for three decades as a staunch advocate of building a big tent party that includes both pro-choice and pro-life Republicans.
For a theory to be scientific it must be capable of being refuted by the evidence. Given that we have had three decades of rising temperature followed by a decade of stable and slightly falling temperatures worldwide, how many decades would you require before you are convinced that the theory on which you are committing £400bn of taxpayers' money might be slightly wrong?
Fifteen years ago, while I was temporarily chairing meetings of pro-life leaders, I pleaded with the angry males to say no to interviews, and instead let beautiful pro-life women become the face for the movement.
I didn't want to be pro-life. I hated the pro-life movement. I had been taught to hate them. I thought they hated me.
If you're anti-war it doesn't mean you are 'Pro' one side or the other in a conflict. However, it does make you 'Pro' many thingsPro-Peace, Pro-Human, Pro-Evolution, it makes you Pro-Communication, Pro-Diplomacy, Pro-Love, Pro-Understanding, Pro-Forgiveness.
Evidence-based reasoning underpins all scientific thinking, and it involves testing hypotheses or theories against data. Validating a theory requires replicable measurements from independent groups with different equipment and methods of analysis. Convergence of evidence is critical to the acceptance of a scientific idea.
The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?
When confronted with two courses of action I jot down on a piece of paper all the arguments in favor of each one, then on the opposite side I write the arguments against each one. Then by weighing the arguments pro and con and cancelling them out, one against the other, I take the course indicated by what remains.
The best scientific evidence suggests temperatures are rising, and the best scientific evidence suggests man-made anthropogenic carbon emissions have some substantial thing to do with that. However, does that mean the trend will continue forever? We don't know.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!