Options

ITT the abortions of strawmen

145791018

Posts

  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    I agree, hence I argue for carrying the pregnancy to term. No unsafe, illegal abortion required.

    Except pregnancy is incredibly unsafe, far more than abortion.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Oh, and I forgot to mention: what other rights should we get rid of to protect lives, since you don't believe in the right to bodily integrity? How about the right to free speech? All those neo-nazis probably inspire plenty of deaths. Ooh! Or the right to freedom of religion? Think of all those Christian Scientists denying themselves needed medical treatment. Right to bear arms? Tons of people die from firearm accidents. How about all those court-related rights? If we could arrest people without warrants, think of how many murders we could stop; ditto with secret trials.

    Making shit up is not conducive to debate.

    You don't believe in a right that's enshrined in our legal process above the right to life, so it seems logical to ask which other ones you don't believe in.

    Making shit up is not conducive to debate.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I agree, hence I argue for carrying the pregnancy to term. No unsafe, illegal abortion required.

    Except pregnancy is incredibly unsafe, far more than abortion.

    It's far safer for the child than a "safe" abortion is, and it's far safer for the mother than an otherwise unsafe abortion.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Oh, and I forgot to mention: what other rights should we get rid of to protect lives, since you don't believe in the right to bodily integrity? How about the right to free speech? All those neo-nazis probably inspire plenty of deaths. Ooh! Or the right to freedom of religion? Think of all those Christian Scientists denying themselves needed medical treatment. Right to bear arms? Tons of people die from firearm accidents. How about all those court-related rights? If we could arrest people without warrants, think of how many murders we could stop; ditto with secret trials.

    Making shit up is not conducive to debate.

    You don't believe in a right that's enshrined in our legal process above the right to life, so it seems logical to ask which other ones you don't believe in.

    Making shit up is not conducive to debate.

    I'm not making shit up. You don't believe in bodily integrity. You think that it doesn't apply if the person does something to deserve the violation. That means not believing in it.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Oh, and I forgot to mention: what other rights should we get rid of to protect lives, since you don't believe in the right to bodily integrity? How about the right to free speech? All those neo-nazis probably inspire plenty of deaths. Ooh! Or the right to freedom of religion? Think of all those Christian Scientists denying themselves needed medical treatment. Right to bear arms? Tons of people die from firearm accidents. How about all those court-related rights? If we could arrest people without warrants, think of how many murders we could stop; ditto with secret trials.

    Making shit up is not conducive to debate.

    You don't believe in a right that's enshrined in our legal process above the right to life, so it seems logical to ask which other ones you don't believe in.

    Making shit up is not conducive to debate.
    Denying people the right to do with their bodies as they see fit is exactly what you are arguing for. The conclusion of any morality must generally be a view of "this is how I would run the world".

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I agree, hence I argue for carrying the pregnancy to term. No unsafe, illegal abortion required.

    Except pregnancy is incredibly unsafe, far more than abortion.

    It's far safer for the child than a "safe" abortion is, and it's far safer for the mother than an otherwise unsafe abortion.

    Who is this child, and what does it have to do with the zygote?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I agree, hence I argue for carrying the pregnancy to term. No unsafe, illegal abortion required.

    Except pregnancy is incredibly unsafe, far more than abortion.

    It's far safer for the child than a "safe" abortion is, and it's far safer for the mother than an otherwise unsafe abortion.

    Again, if abortion is illegal, people are going to choose not to carry their pregnancy to term, and they will often have very, very good reasons to do so. It's fine if you think it's morally better to continue an unwanted pregnancy, but wanting to make it illegal to do otherwise just leads to unsafe abortions.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    I'm not making shit up. You don't believe in bodily integrity. You think that it doesn't apply if the person does something to deserve the violation. That means not believing in it.

    Am I allowed to tell you what you think, regardless of what you actually think, as well? Somehow I don't think I am. What makes you so special?

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    I'm not making shit up. You don't believe in bodily integrity. You think that it doesn't apply if the person does something to deserve the violation. That means not believing in it.

    Am I allowed to tell you what you think, regardless of what you actually think, as well? Somehow I don't think I am. What makes you so special?

    If I say something five or six times? Yeah, you can tell me it's what I think. Want me to go back and quote you?

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    I'm not making shit up. You don't believe in bodily integrity. You think that it doesn't apply if the person does something to deserve the violation. That means not believing in it.

    Am I allowed to tell you what you think, regardless of what you actually think, as well? Somehow I don't think I am. What makes you so special?

    If I say something five or six times? Yeah, you can tell me it's what I think. Want me to go back and quote you?

    As saying "I don't believe in bodily integrity"? No, I don't want you to waste your time looking for a quote that you imagined.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    "It's a person" is useful for legal arguments, but it doesn't make any sense (on its own) for moral arguments, so I'm not sure what the "person-hood" based secular antiabortion argument is.

    You could sum up (And, yes, grossly oversimplify) my moral outlook by saying I worship humanity, if that helps.

    It doesn't help. I don't think it makes any sense. Why should anyone worship "humanity"? What does that even mean? What's the positive outcome? What's the rationale?

    Why is it better than being concerned with the amount of suffering or joy an event creates?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    I agree, hence I argue for carrying the pregnancy to term. No unsafe, illegal abortion required.

    Except pregnancy is incredibly unsafe, far more than abortion.

    It's far safer for the child than a "safe" abortion is, and it's far safer for the mother than an otherwise unsafe abortion.

    What the unholy fuck does that mean?

    Hey, dig it: doesn't this come down to one thing? Are you ever going to have the capacity to make this choice yourself? Are you ever going to have to decide what to do with your own body in this regard? No, you're not. I'm sure, if you were put in a situation where you had a deciding voice in somebody's choice to do this, you'd hold your opinion that they're wrong and you wouldn't want to be involved in one. That's fine, you can hold that opinion, but let's make sure the rest of us can make up our minds about it, instead of having some bullshit one-size-fits-all (hah, it's actually an appropriate description in this argument!) legislation hoisted on us that removes our autonomy and independence.

    Mkay?

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    I'm not making shit up. You don't believe in bodily integrity. You think that it doesn't apply if the person does something to deserve the violation. That means not believing in it.

    Am I allowed to tell you what you think, regardless of what you actually think, as well? Somehow I don't think I am. What makes you so special?

    If I say something five or six times? Yeah, you can tell me it's what I think. Want me to go back and quote you?

    As saying "I don't believe in bodily integrity"? No, I don't want you to waste your time looking for a quote that you imagined.

    There's no need to look up any quotes. It's a concept that's irreconcilable with the views you've been espousing.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »

    As saying "I don't believe in bodily integrity"? No, I don't want you to waste your time looking for a quote that you imagined.

    You said you believe in mandatory organ donations if someone causes someone else to need an organ.

    You said that women should be forced to support a fetus with their bodies if they caused the fetus to be in there to begin with.

    These are examples of violations of the right of bodily integrity.

    You don't believe in the right of bodily integrity.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    "It's a person" is useful for legal arguments, but it doesn't make any sense (on its own) for moral arguments, so I'm not sure what the "person-hood" based secular antiabortion argument is.

    You could sum up (And, yes, grossly oversimplify) my moral outlook by saying I worship humanity, if that helps.

    It doesn't help. I don't think it makes any sense. Why should anyone worship "humanity"? What does that even mean? What's the positive outcome? What's the rationale?

    Why is it better than being concerned with the amount of suffering or joy an event creates?

    Didn't really think it would, it probably doesn't, they shouldn't and I can't really recommend it, very little, it's resulted in me keeping my body in good shape but other than that not much except filling a void in my psyche, there is no rationale rather a relationship in my mentality forged from intense duress, it's not.

    In that order.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    "It's a person" is useful for legal arguments, but it doesn't make any sense (on its own) for moral arguments, so I'm not sure what the "person-hood" based secular antiabortion argument is.

    You could sum up (And, yes, grossly oversimplify) my moral outlook by saying I worship humanity, if that helps.

    It doesn't help. I don't think it makes any sense. Why should anyone worship "humanity"? What does that even mean? What's the positive outcome? What's the rationale?

    Why is it better than being concerned with the amount of suffering or joy an event creates?

    Didn't really think it would, it probably doesn't, they shouldn't and I can't really recommend it, very little, it's resulted in me keeping my body in good shape but other than that not much except filling a void in my psyche, there is no rationale rather a relationship in my mentality forged from intense duress, it's not.

    In that order.

    Rambling incoherently isn't conducive to debate either.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    It doesn't help. I don't think it makes any sense. Why should anyone worship "humanity"? What does that even mean? What's the positive outcome? What's the rationale?

    Why is it better than being concerned with the amount of suffering or joy an event creates?

    Didn't really think it would, it probably doesn't, they shouldn't and I can't really recommend it, very little, it's resulted in me keeping my body in good shape but other than that not much except filling a void in my psyche, there is no rationale rather a relationship in my mentality forged from intense duress, it's not.

    In that order.

    So you're advocating a position that you admit makes little if any sense, you wouldn't recommend, has an admittedly essentially meaningless core tenant... and what the do fetuses have to do with keeping you in good shape?

    Are we wasting our time talking to you? It sounds like you've retreated to "because I say so", and that seems like a remarkably unproductive position to argue from or with.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    So you're advocating a position that you admit makes little if any sense, you wouldn't recommend, has an admittedly essentially meaningless core tenant... and what the do fetuses have to do with keeping you in good shape?

    Are we wasting our time talking to you? It sounds like you've retreated to "because I say so", and that seems like a remarkably unproductive position to argue from or with.

    Being in good shape simply comes from viewing the human body as particularly sacred. From that outlook, I am naturally more inclined to take better care of it. Religiously, you could say.

    As for the merits of my personal... Whatever you want to call it. Philosophy, pseudo-religion, what-have-you... I realise that it makes very little sense. That's why I accept the way society actually works as opposed to the way it should work in my head without becoming a political activist or a terrorist, because I realise that the way I form these ideas is not anything close to what it's supposed to be. But, malformed as they may be, I still have opinions. It's only natural to express and defend them.

    Does that make sense at least?

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    So you're advocating a position that you admit makes little if any sense, you wouldn't recommend, has an admittedly essentially meaningless core tenant... and what the do fetuses have to do with keeping you in good shape?

    Are we wasting our time talking to you? It sounds like you've retreated to "because I say so", and that seems like a remarkably unproductive position to argue from or with.

    Being in good shape simply comes from viewing the human body as particularly sacred. From that outlook, I am naturally more inclined to take better care of it. Religiously, you could say.
    This makes no sense. People take care of themselves because you can't just clone jump out of a badly malfunctioning body, and even if you could it'd be an awful experience to be in one. No one religiously takes care of themselves, they are more likely to religiously stick to a particular regime, which is in fact quite likely to be bad for them in some way (professional athletes are bad at letting injuries heal because they try to compensate and hurt themselves again for example). But I think this is somewhat secondary to this thread...actually maybe not.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    But, malformed as they may be, I still have opinions. It's only natural to express and defend them.

    That's fine. The only thing is, you may want to rethink expressing and defending them on this particular forum.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    So you're advocating a position that you admit makes little if any sense, you wouldn't recommend, has an admittedly essentially meaningless core tenant... and what the do fetuses have to do with keeping you in good shape?

    Are we wasting our time talking to you? It sounds like you've retreated to "because I say so", and that seems like a remarkably unproductive position to argue from or with.

    Being in good shape simply comes from viewing the human body as particularly sacred. From that outlook, I am naturally more inclined to take better care of it. Religiously, you could say.

    As for the merits of my personal... Whatever you want to call it. Philosophy, pseudo-religion, what-have-you... I realise that it makes very little sense. That's why I accept the way society actually works as opposed to the way it should work in my head without becoming a political activist or a terrorist, because I realise that the way I form these ideas is not anything close to what it's supposed to be. But, malformed as they may be, I still have opinions. It's only natural to express and defend them.

    Does that make sense at least?

    Quackery is what it is.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    So you're advocating a position that you admit makes little if any sense, you wouldn't recommend, has an admittedly essentially meaningless core tenant... and what the do fetuses have to do with keeping you in good shape?

    Are we wasting our time talking to you? It sounds like you've retreated to "because I say so", and that seems like a remarkably unproductive position to argue from or with.

    Being in good shape simply comes from viewing the human body as particularly sacred. From that outlook, I am naturally more inclined to take better care of it. Religiously, you could say.
    This makes no sense. People take care of themselves because you can't just clone jump out of a badly malfunctioning body, and even if you could it'd be an awful experience to be in one. No one religiously takes care of themselves, they are more likely to religiously stick to a particular regime, which is in fact quite likely to be bad for them in some way (professional athletes are bad at letting injuries heal because they try to compensate and hurt themselves again for example). But I think this is somewhat secondary to this thread...actually maybe not.

    I didn't say other people don't take care of their bodies. I just said that I make it a priority. This does not imply that others do not, though, as you point out, they do it for different reasons. The typical person cares about his body because it provides an obvious utility value to him. I care about mine because I hold it as sacred.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Elki wrote: »
    Quackery is what it is.

    Yes yes, therein is the problem.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    I realise that the way I form these ideas is not anything close to what it's supposed to be. But, malformed as they may be, I still have opinions. It's only natural to express and defend them.

    I tend to think of defending an opinion as expressing a logically sound argument in its defense. Your expression of your opinion is your defense however, and that's not likely to win any converts or respect, which I think tend to be the goals one has in mind when he wants to defend an opinion.

    I suggest you retreat and construct good arguments, because I think everyone has realized that they have been banging their heads against the wall with you on this subject, and that doesn't leave many people in good moods.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    So you're advocating a position that you admit makes little if any sense, you wouldn't recommend, has an admittedly essentially meaningless core tenant... and what the do fetuses have to do with keeping you in good shape?

    Are we wasting our time talking to you? It sounds like you've retreated to "because I say so", and that seems like a remarkably unproductive position to argue from or with.

    Being in good shape simply comes from viewing the human body as particularly sacred. From that outlook, I am naturally more inclined to take better care of it. Religiously, you could say.
    This makes no sense. People take care of themselves because you can't just clone jump out of a badly malfunctioning body, and even if you could it'd be an awful experience to be in one. No one religiously takes care of themselves, they are more likely to religiously stick to a particular regime, which is in fact quite likely to be bad for them in some way (professional athletes are bad at letting injuries heal because they try to compensate and hurt themselves again for example). But I think this is somewhat secondary to this thread...actually maybe not.

    I didn't say other people don't take care of their bodies. I just said that I make it a priority. This does not imply that others do not, though, as you point out, they do it for different reasons. The typical person cares about his body because it provides an obvious utility value to him. I care about mine because I hold it as sacred.
    I really don't see the functional difference in that.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    I really don't see the functional difference in that.

    Oh, there isn't one, overall, but there is at least in my case. Preserving my body's utility value doesn't require the kind of care that I give it.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    A woman who valued her body above all-else would definitely go for the abortion. Because, you know, pregnancy is terrible for it.

    I'm sure we all knew that, though.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Ah, but not being born is terrible for the child's body. And yes, I realise that the presence of a child is one aspect we disagree on, there's no need to pretend the disagreement doesn't exist and that my position on the validity of the zygote's life was never made clear.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    I really don't see the functional difference in that.

    Oh, there isn't one, overall, but there is at least in my case. Preserving my body's utility value doesn't require the kind of care that I give it.

    american_psycho.jpg

    So basically you're this guy.

    Axe and all.

    Gotcha.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Ah, but not being born is terrible for the child's body.

    Why should anyone care though? Unless you can provide some rationale behind this, this discussion seems fruitless.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ChurchChurch Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Ah, but not being born is terrible for the child's body.

    Why should anyone care though? Unless you can provide some rationale behind this, this discussion seems fruitless.

    Well, unfortunately, the standard for "personhood" on this board requires a greater stage of development, and that seems to be one of those special cases where a plead to numbers is acceptable.

    Not that I think it shouldn't be, because if it wasn't there wouldn't be any way to reach a consensus on that sort of thing.

    Church on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Ah, but not being born is terrible for the child's body.

    Why should anyone care though? Unless you can provide some rationale behind this, this discussion seems fruitless.

    Well, unfortunately, the standard for "personhood" on this board requires a greater stage of development, and that seems to be one of those special cases where a plead to numbers is acceptable.

    Not that I think it shouldn't be, because if it wasn't there wouldn't be any way to reach a consensus on that sort of thing.

    The question is more about whether or not the clump of cells is viable on its own.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Ah, but not being born is terrible for the child's body. And yes, I realise that the presence of a child is one aspect we disagree on, there's no need to pretend the disagreement doesn't exist and that my position on the validity of the zygote's life was never made clear.

    It was made clear, and I made it clear there is no child. Call it a child, call it a bird, call it a plane, call it superman, and it'll still be a fucking zygote. Is that clear?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Ah, but not being born is terrible for the child's body.

    Why should anyone care though? Unless you can provide some rationale behind this, this discussion seems fruitless.

    Well, unfortunately, the standard for "personhood" on this board requires a greater stage of development, and that seems to be one of those special cases where a plead to numbers is acceptable.

    Not that I think it shouldn't be, because if it wasn't there wouldn't be any way to reach a consensus on that sort of thing.

    Again, personhood is not the issue. You want to give fetuses rights we don't give to people; specifically, the right to override someone else's bodily integrity in order to be supported. Other people are saying that the woman's right to control her own body (bodily integrity again.... God, I'm sick of typing that phrase) overrides the fetus's right to stay alive, whether that fetus is a person or not.

    If you want to say that human life = super special and more important than rights, that's fine, but don't bring it in here without anything to back it up besides "I say so, and I know it doesn't make sense."

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Church wrote: »
    Church wrote: »
    Ah, but not being born is terrible for the child's body.

    Why should anyone care though? Unless you can provide some rationale behind this, this discussion seems fruitless.

    Well, unfortunately, the standard for "personhood" on this board requires a greater stage of development, and that seems to be one of those special cases where a plead to numbers is acceptable.

    Not that I think it shouldn't be, because if it wasn't there wouldn't be any way to reach a consensus on that sort of thing.

    Again, "personhood" only matters, as far as I can see, in a legal sense. It's not a moral argument on its own, which is where the "why should anyone care?" question is coming from.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Im glad that i was born with a penis. It means i never, ever have to make the decision about abortion. So whomever said that neither I, nor the government has any business telling a woman what to do with her body i agree with. I have no right to force a woman to be a mother, or to force her to kill a fetus.

    Its her body, its her choice. End of story.

    Detharin on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2008
    I really think this thread would be far more interesting if the rest of you realised that church is either a troll or far too insane to actually have a conversation with, and ignored him.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    How is "personhood" not a moral concern?

    Shinto on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Shinto wrote: »
    How is "personhood" not a moral concern?

    It's a moral concern if you fill it out a little with some explanation (like answering the question of "why should I care what is or isn't a person?"), which is what I was requesting.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2008
    Shinto wrote: »
    How is "personhood" not a moral concern?

    It's a moral concern if you fill it out a little with some explanation (like answering the question of "why should I care what is or isn't a person?"), which is what I was requesting.

    I'm somewhat disturbed by the implication that you don't don't think people have some inherent value.

    Or were you just probing for someone's reasoning on that score?

    Shinto on
Sign In or Register to comment.