A comment from “jimmy” notes that I failed in my stated intention to be proactive rather than reactive. But, I prefer to call the post a “response.” Or rebuttal.
The reference was to self-identified progressives.
The Progressives’ meeting was sponsored by John Podesta’s organization.
They are not prolife at either end of life.
They are Chairs and Directors of University bioethics centers (the Universities at Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Tuskegee) and Dr. Caplan helps edit the American Journal of Bioethics.
Moreno is the Immediate Past President of the American Society of Bioethics and the Humanities and Rita Alta Charo is on the Board of Directors of that organization.
One of the articles I referenced was from the journal, Nature.
The progressives do claim that
‘It is important for progressive bioethics to enter the political fray,’ says Arthur Caplan, an ethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
(Um, he’s the Director and Chair…)
I suppose that jimmy disagrees with my definition of an election as the “ultimate poll.”
LifeEthics 
>No, I did not say anything at all about being proactive or reactive. I said that the mission statement of this blog states: "Our intent is to be more proactive than reactive and to remain neutral as to politics and religion." Then I stated that your comments — call them a rebuttal if you want — are not in keeping with the neutrality aspect of that mission. I suggest that you either change the content of your posts, or change the mission statement. (Changing the mission statement would be less time-consuming.) As for whether I believe that the last election was the ultimate poll, this is not something I even suggested in my comment. To put my own two (non-American) bits in, I suppose that those who win democratic elections (even by 4% margins) can try to use their acquired muscle to shape the country (including the 48% of those who were opposed to the present administration) to match its particular moral view. To the victors the spoils, as it were. But what are you suggesting? Are those who did not vote for the present administration just supposed to shut up? Roll over? Play dead? Is that what America is about?
Posted by jimmy | October 16, 2005, 1:36 am>I disagree, but admit that I might find it difficult to be completely neutral, especially in rebuttals.Mine are mild compared to the comments about slurs on religion, "Know-Nothings" and "fetus fetishes" that the progressives used. Not to mention the complaints about the Constitutional constraints.
Posted by LifeEthics.org | October 16, 2005, 4:51 am>Saying that your comments are mildly (rather than rabidly) of a certain political/religious view is a far cry from saying your views are neutral, or even trying to be neutral, as your mission statement puts it.So again: why not change the mission statement? It is just an issue of having a coherent blog, in the end. Frankly, anyone who looks at your posts will not think you are trying to be neutral, and when people then look at the mission statement, they could accuse you of being dishonest.
Posted by jimmy | October 16, 2005, 5:11 am>Just FYI as a reader and with no disrespect intended, Dr. Caplan does not edit The American Journal of Bioethics, Glenn McGee does, and it is no longer at the University of Pennsylvania, it moved with Dr. McGee to the new Alden March Bioethics Institute in Albany. Just FYI.
Posted by The Editors | October 21, 2005, 6:19 am>To the Editors, sorry. But, it does seem that y'all have an awfully close relationship.
Posted by LifeEthics.org | October 22, 2005, 1:04 am