[scott7278]

I agree with you that conservatism is more logical than emotional -- but it seems that your assumption is that we can't have a valid opinion unless it coincides with yours, simply because you've "discovered something" scientifically (you've been "enlightened").

We are all biased -- we all view things from some point of view. It can either be man-centered or G-d centered, or maybe a mixture of religion and man-centeredness. I view science (and news) through the lens of Scripture, and I make no apologies for that. I'm rational, but not rationalistic.

Maybe some here are reacting emotionally, but it's only because they've already made up their minds as to what the truth is.

I agree with you, religion and truth are not always together; but G-d is the very embodiment of truth. You might disagree, and that's okay -- I respect your opinions and I care about them.

Getting back to the article, where are you on this issue? Are you undecided, in favor of the "change" or against the "change"?

[Paul C. Jesup]

I agree with you that conservatism is more logical than emotional -- but it seems that your assumption is that we can't have a valid opinion unless it coincides with yours, simply because you've "discovered something" scientifically (you've been "enlightened").

Do not put words in my mouth.

In post 81 I stated: the child is not going on hormones or anything like that.

I think a 'wait and see' approach would be best.

Of course you would prefer a "kneejerk" reaction, using religion to justify your "kneejerk" reaction.