So in the space of a few posts you contradicted yourself. First you claimed protection from AIDS and now you don't. Which is it? Do you care? I'd say that parents with as little understanding of their religion's medical policies, and who are so glibly able to talk of their child's death for a policy that could change next week, should not be allowed to have children.
I find it interesting that if it did change next week, you wouldn't question it - you'd receive it as new light. So, you answered my question:
(i) You treat the GB as inspired and ifallible
(ii) You are UNable to defend your religion using the scriptures.
So, in view of the '65 article you are no better than the Catholics whom you condemn.
Cygnus: I think it's my own buisness who I answer and who I don't. But, to answer yr question, it provides a useful object lesson for any who might be lurking. Further, it seemed for a while that Trisha, even though totally out to lunch, might actually have been considering some points.