I reread the piece by Wolling and Duncan and while there are assertions one might disagree with, the authors never once attacked the motives of the opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately, the piece by Sundt barely begins before engaging in ad hominen attacks. Sundt assumes "they [Wolling and Duncan] nor most proponents of the plan have made any effort to learn and understand [the situation]" (argument from motives), and "proponents are convinced they have the moral high ground (we have a higher moral ground because we don't claim the moral high ground) and they "view dissenters’ opinions as heretical" (assuming internal thought processes then blaming them for those assumed processes). 

Otherwise, fine article with some good points.