| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2012 01:36:15 AM · #326 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Monica, I understand that sentiment, but I will tell you there are dark roads which could be travelled under those auspies.
Plus you totally ignored the question. It's a hard one, but the most important one in the debate. |
I didn't ignore the question. When do I think personhood should be granted? I don't know. It's a line that has shifted up and down over time and across cultures, the line used to be well past leaving the womb in harsher times. That WAS my answer. I don't have one, and that's a deeply personal question. I don't think there IS an objective answer. So that's the woman's choice. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 11:24:51 AM · #327 |
| OK, I won't press it. At the very least I would encourage you to use that thought experiment as a way to understand people who arrive at a different conclusion than yours. To them, the easiest (though still not easy) answer seems to be personhood is granted at the very beginning. Then they compare the right to that person's life versus the right of its mother's bodily autonomy and ultimately decide the right to life supercedes it. I won't ask you to change your mind about things, but I'll ask you to remember that line of argument when you talk with the next person who sides against abortion. It isn't a ludicrous argument as Judith intimates, but I will also say it isn't the only defensible position (you won't hear me saying pro-choice people are ludicrous). This is why the debate on this issue is so difficult. Both sides seem to have important points but a compromise position that is satisfying to everybody is hard to come by. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 11:29:15 AM · #328 |
It's starting now in places besides China: The Daily Telegraph discovered that women were being granted illegal abortions by doctors based on the sex of their unborn baby.
This is one of the many problems religious people have with abortion and birth control (and IVF). Get pregnant, you only want a blue-eyed blond boy, well just abort and try again. Children become products not presents.
Edit: Article is from England BTW not America (yet).
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 11:31:27. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 11:58:41 AM · #329 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by yanko:
Jason wasn't called a Nazi but at the same time I think it was very poor taste to mention it except to demonize his side's position. If anything he has science on his side. Science tells us that there is virtually no difference between a baby just born and what was in the womb earlier. To choose the birth date as the basis for personhood is as arbitary as you can get. It's no different than choosing age 21 as the basis for adulthood. |
Maybe I missed someone saying it, but I don't recall that anyone in this thread supported the position that date of birth is the basis for declaring personhood. Even the law in the United States doesn't do that. Abortion is illegal after the second trimester or thereabouts, whenever it has been determined that the fetus is viable. And the quotation about Christian fascists had nothing directly to do with the argument around abortion and personhood. Rather it was related to the laws the right-wing politicians are passing in this country in the context of what was discussed in the Rachel Maddow segment. If you watched that video, I think you'll understand better the point I had in mind.
As for demonizing Jason's position, I don't even know what his position is anymore. Do I think what the right-wing is doing is evil and dangerous? Yes, I do. |
I don't agree with the proposed Virginia law and rarely agree with anything the right-wing does but their push to end partial birth abortions despite the vehement protests from the left over the years is anything but evil. If anything is evil it's those abortions. I'll spare everyone the really NSFW photos. |
I agree with you on this. My understanding is that some on the pro-choice side of the argument have reacted as the gun lobby reacts when reasonable restrictions are proposed for gun ownership. Rational discussions don't seem possible about some topics in this country because of extremists on both sides. Such is the state of our politics. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 12:06:32 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I won't press it. At the very least I would encourage you to use that thought experiment as a way to understand people who arrive at a different conclusion than yours. To them, the easiest (though still not easy) answer seems to be personhood is granted at the very beginning. Then they compare the right to that person's life versus the right of its mother's bodily autonomy and ultimately decide the right to life supercedes it. I won't ask you to change your mind about things, but I'll ask you to remember that line of argument when you talk with the next person who sides against abortion. It isn't a ludicrous argument as Judith intimates, but I will also say it isn't the only defensible position (you won't hear me saying pro-choice people are ludicrous). This is why the debate on this issue is so difficult. Both sides seem to have important points but a compromise position that is satisfying to everybody is hard to come by. |
What "compromise position" is possible if the anti-choice forces don't want to compromise? If personhood rights ensue from the moment of conception, and the right to life of that unborn entity/clump-of-cells/whatever-you-want-to-call-it supersedes the right of the woman to her bodily autonomy, there is no compromise position from that starting point. Not only is abortion then outlawed, but many forms of birth control also are outlawed. Where is the wiggle room?
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 12:13:33. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 12:19:47 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I won't press it. At the very least I would encourage you to use that thought experiment as a way to understand people who arrive at a different conclusion than yours. To them, the easiest (though still not easy) answer seems to be personhood is granted at the very beginning. Then they compare the right to that person's life versus the right of its mother's bodily autonomy and ultimately decide the right to life supercedes it. I won't ask you to change your mind about things, but I'll ask you to remember that line of argument when you talk with the next person who sides against abortion. It isn't a ludicrous argument as Judith intimates, but I will also say it isn't the only defensible position (you won't hear me saying pro-choice people are ludicrous). This is why the debate on this issue is so difficult. Both sides seem to have important points but a compromise position that is satisfying to everybody is hard to come by. |
What "compromise position" is possible if the anti-choice forces don't want to compromise? If personhood rights ensue from the moment of conception, and the right to life of that unborn entity/clump-of-cells/whatever-you-want-to-call-it supersedes the right of the woman to her bodily autonomy, there is no compromise position from that starting point. Not only is abortion then outlawed, but many forms of birth control also are outlawed. Where is the wiggle room? |
I think there may be wiggle room. Here is an interesting question that I think pro-life people would cringe at me asking. Could it be that abortion is morally wrong but should not be illegal? Instead the objective could be providing the societal support to put women in the position to choose not to abort. Along with this we could make it more difficult (but not impossible) to obtain one. People pushing for 15 and 16 year olds to be able to have an abortion without notifying anybody don't seem to understand the gravity of the decision. We don't even let 15 year olds drink alcohol or drive a car or vote. Why do we think they are capable of making such a decision by themselves? And, yes, there are always scenarios that seem to make it look bad (the abusive father, etc), but those are extreme cases and I don't think they should carry as much weight as some do.
So I agree with you it is very difficult to try to compromise (and there are people on both sides that would have nothing to do with it though I fear (but would gladly be wrong) that you are among that number), but compromise could be found. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 01:05:43 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here is a thought experiment that is challenging and is part of the meta argument. Let us remove the considerations for the woman's rights to simplify things. I KNOW this isn't the real world case, but bear with me. Let us imagine that we have the technology to grow a human from fertilized egg to baby artificially. At 0 weeks the egg is fertilized. At about 22 weeks the fetus is transferred to a second machine and at 40 weeks the baby is given to its parents. |
I haven't read it for a long time, but it seems to me Aldous Huxley provided a most detailed answer to this situation over 50 years ago ... not sure either "side" of this argument would welcome the outcome ...
Perhaps if consrvatives would be satisfied with just "thinking" about banning contraception and abortion instead of imposing their beliefs and values on others we could move on to a more inspiring topic ... |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 02:13:54 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here is a thought experiment that is challenging and is part of the meta argument. Let us remove the considerations for the woman's rights to simplify things. I KNOW this isn't the real world case, but bear with me. Let us imagine that we have the technology to grow a human from fertilized egg to baby artificially. At 0 weeks the egg is fertilized. At about 22 weeks the fetus is transferred to a second machine and at 40 weeks the baby is given to its parents. |
I haven't read it for a long time, but it seems to me Aldous Huxley provided a most detailed answer to this situation over 50 years ago ... not sure either "side" of this argument would welcome the outcome ...
Perhaps if consrvatives would be satisfied with just "thinking" about banning contraception and abortion instead of imposing their beliefs and values on others we could move on to a more inspiring topic ... |
The problem with a society is at some point something is going to be "imposed" on someone somewhere. It's just a fact of life. You will note that in the abortion debate I have never once raised a religious concern. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:14:37 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here is a thought experiment that is challenging and is part of the meta argument. Let us remove the considerations for the woman's rights to simplify things. I KNOW this isn't the real world case, but bear with me. Let us imagine that we have the technology to grow a human from fertilized egg to baby artificially. At 0 weeks the egg is fertilized. At about 22 weeks the fetus is transferred to a second machine and at 40 weeks the baby is given to its parents. |
I haven't read it for a long time, but it seems to me Aldous Huxley provided a most detailed answer to this situation over 50 years ago ... not sure either "side" of this argument would welcome the outcome ...
Perhaps if consrvatives would be satisfied with just "thinking" about banning contraception and abortion instead of imposing their beliefs and values on others we could move on to a more inspiring topic ... |
The problem with a society is at some point something is going to be "imposed" on someone somewhere. It's just a fact of life. You will note that in the abortion debate I have never once raised a religious concern. |
I fail to see how being asked to keep a personal morality confined to one's own life the same kind of 'imposition' as being denied or stripped of certain rights and freedoms. That's really the crux of the matter when it comes to many of these kinds of issues. One side thinks that other people living THEIR lives differently from themselves is having something imposed on them, where the other side actually has to deal with not being ALLOWED to do something. Hardly seems like the same kind of imposing, does it? |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:18:39 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I fail to see how being asked to keep a personal morality confined to one's own life the same kind of 'imposition' as being denied or stripped of certain rights and freedoms. That's really the crux of the matter when it comes to many of these kinds of issues. One side thinks that other people living THEIR lives differently from themselves is having something imposed on them, where the other side actually has to deal with not being ALLOWED to do something. Hardly seems like the same kind of imposing, does it? |
I'm sure the plantation farmers of the 1850s felt exactly the same... |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:20:50 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I fail to see how being asked to keep a personal morality confined to one's own life the same kind of 'imposition' as being denied or stripped of certain rights and freedoms. That's really the crux of the matter when it comes to many of these kinds of issues. One side thinks that other people living THEIR lives differently from themselves is having something imposed on them, where the other side actually has to deal with not being ALLOWED to do something. Hardly seems like the same kind of imposing, does it? |
I'm sure the plantation farmers of the 1850s felt exactly the same... |
OH please. That involved the rights of people that were under oppression BY plantation farmers. Apples and Oranges Achoo. But, typical you. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:25:10 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You will note that in the abortion debate I have never once raised a religious concern. |
Puhleeze. Any legislative attempt to interfere with the relationship between a pregnant woman and her health care provider during the first two trimesters is only justifiable by a religious argument, not a medical one -- that's the law of the land. Attempts to completely outlaw abortion and contraception are clearly religious-based. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:30:10 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, I won't press it. At the very least I would encourage you to use that thought experiment as a way to understand people who arrive at a different conclusion than yours. To them, the easiest (though still not easy) answer seems to be personhood is granted at the very beginning. Then they compare the right to that person's life versus the right of its mother's bodily autonomy and ultimately decide the right to life supercedes it. I won't ask you to change your mind about things, but I'll ask you to remember that line of argument when you talk with the next person who sides against abortion. It isn't a ludicrous argument as Judith intimates, but I will also say it isn't the only defensible position (you won't hear me saying pro-choice people are ludicrous). This is why the debate on this issue is so difficult. Both sides seem to have important points but a compromise position that is satisfying to everybody is hard to come by. |
What "compromise position" is possible if the anti-choice forces don't want to compromise? If personhood rights ensue from the moment of conception, and the right to life of that unborn entity/clump-of-cells/whatever-you-want-to-call-it supersedes the right of the woman to her bodily autonomy, there is no compromise position from that starting point. Not only is abortion then outlawed, but many forms of birth control also are outlawed. Where is the wiggle room? |
I think there may be wiggle room. Here is an interesting question that I think pro-life people would cringe at me asking. Could it be that abortion is morally wrong but should not be illegal? Instead the objective could be providing the societal support to put women in the position to choose not to abort. Along with this we could make it more difficult (but not impossible) to obtain one. People pushing for 15 and 16 year olds to be able to have an abortion without notifying anybody don't seem to understand the gravity of the decision. We don't even let 15 year olds drink alcohol or drive a car or vote. Why do we think they are capable of making such a decision by themselves? And, yes, there are always scenarios that seem to make it look bad (the abusive father, etc), but those are extreme cases and I don't think they should carry as much weight as some do.
So I agree with you it is very difficult to try to compromise (and there are people on both sides that would have nothing to do with it though I fear (but would gladly be wrong) that you are among that number), but compromise could be found. |
I would frame it differently and say that women, to the greatest extent possible, ought to be in a position where they become pregnant only when they want to become pregnant. Assuming we have the same thing in mind, of course that is a worthy goal to pursue. No one wants to go through this, even if they have no moral qualms about it. If I had to choose a policy goal, I'd focus on reducing elective abortions in the second trimester, because in my opinion the morality gets murkier the more developed the fetus and the closer to viability when there is no medical necessity. That would mean focusing on young girls and giving them better access to contraceptives and better education in a variety of different areas. Now, I hate to be pessimistic, but I know that I have already run into a brick wall with that last suggestion with the folks on your side of this issue. If we couldn't even agree on making contraceptives available to minors, or providing better education about sexuality, how are you going to convince the anti-abortion folks that abortion should remain legal even though they're morally opposed to it?
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 17:47:23. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:36:10 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I fail to see how being asked to keep a personal morality confined to one's own life the same kind of 'imposition' as being denied or stripped of certain rights and freedoms. That's really the crux of the matter when it comes to many of these kinds of issues. One side thinks that other people living THEIR lives differently from themselves is having something imposed on them, where the other side actually has to deal with not being ALLOWED to do something. Hardly seems like the same kind of imposing, does it? |
I'm sure the plantation farmers of the 1850s felt exactly the same... |
OH please. That involved the rights of people that were under oppression BY plantation farmers. Apples and Oranges Achoo. But, typical you. |
Actually the parallels are striking. A people group was previous denied personhood which allowed a population freedom to act in certain ways. When they were granted personhood it changed forever the way others could act. It was in every way an imposition on the plantation owners (but we'd all agree a good one).
If fetuses were granted personhood it would forever alter the freedoms women currently have (though to what extent is up for debate). I see a strong connection and if you don't you aren't thinking very hard.
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 16:36:51. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:38:34 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You will note that in the abortion debate I have never once raised a religious concern. |
Puhleeze. Any legislative attempt to interfere with the relationship between a pregnant woman and her health care provider during the first two trimesters is only justifiable by a religious argument, not a medical one -- that's the law of the land. Attempts to completely outlaw abortion and contraception are clearly religious-based. |
?!? First, separate the contraception and abortion argument. I fall on different sides of that debate. Second, this is ridiculous. Richard's response, if anything, should tell you that there are people who are not religious who have some sort of opposition to abortion (I won't characterize his position beyond that out of deference to him). To say the only motivation for being against abortion is religious is fallacy. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:41:29 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I fail to see how being asked to keep a personal morality confined to one's own life the same kind of 'imposition' as being denied or stripped of certain rights and freedoms. That's really the crux of the matter when it comes to many of these kinds of issues. One side thinks that other people living THEIR lives differently from themselves is having something imposed on them, where the other side actually has to deal with not being ALLOWED to do something. Hardly seems like the same kind of imposing, does it? |
I'm sure the plantation farmers of the 1850s felt exactly the same... |
It's flip answers like this that really get people worked up, just so you know. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:41:58 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You will note that in the abortion debate I have never once raised a religious concern. |
Puhleeze. Any legislative attempt to interfere with the relationship between a pregnant woman and her health care provider during the first two trimesters is only justifiable by a religious argument, not a medical one -- that's the law of the land. Attempts to completely outlaw abortion and contraception are clearly religious-based. |
Thank you. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 04:54:16 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I fail to see how being asked to keep a personal morality confined to one's own life the same kind of 'imposition' as being denied or stripped of certain rights and freedoms. That's really the crux of the matter when it comes to many of these kinds of issues. One side thinks that other people living THEIR lives differently from themselves is having something imposed on them, where the other side actually has to deal with not being ALLOWED to do something. Hardly seems like the same kind of imposing, does it? |
I'm sure the plantation farmers of the 1850s felt exactly the same... |
OH please. That involved the rights of people that were under oppression BY plantation farmers. Apples and Oranges Achoo. But, typical you. |
Actually the parallels are striking. A people group was previous denied personhood which allowed a population freedom to act in certain ways. When they were granted personhood it changed forever the way others could act. It was in every way an imposition on the plantation owners (but we'd all agree a good one).
If fetuses were granted personhood it would forever alter the freedoms women currently have (though to what extent is up for debate). I see a strong connection and if you don't you aren't thinking very hard. |
The only connection is some mystical 'personhood' argument. One would be more apt to place 'personhood' on dogs than fetuses, but that is also very unlikely to happen outside of some extreme groups. It's a strawman, IMO, and merely an attempt to play on emotion alone. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 05:25:44 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Monica, I understand that sentiment, but I will tell you there are dark roads which could be travelled under those auspies.
Plus you totally ignored the question. It's a hard one, but the most important one in the debate. |
I just read your example Doc... and to be honest the process you describe is tantamount to the rules governing chattel.
It could be argued that the potential parent could exercise a claim to, or reject ownership until such time as the product is finished. In such a scenario, the governing body owns all rights till the completion of the product and the ultimate decision to determine person hood would reside exclusively with that body and no one else... Kinda like home ownership.
Do let me know what you think?
Ray
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 17:32:15. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 05:36:44 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I fail to see how being asked to keep a personal morality confined to one's own life the same kind of 'imposition' as being denied or stripped of certain rights and freedoms. That's really the crux of the matter when it comes to many of these kinds of issues. One side thinks that other people living THEIR lives differently from themselves is having something imposed on them, where the other side actually has to deal with not being ALLOWED to do something. Hardly seems like the same kind of imposing, does it? |
I'm sure the plantation farmers of the 1850s felt exactly the same... |
It's flip answers like this that really get people worked up, just so you know. |
Did you read my explanation above? It wasn't a flip answer at all.
Actually the parallels are striking. A people group was previous denied personhood which allowed a population freedom to act in certain ways. When they were granted personhood it changed forever the way others could act. It was in every way an imposition on the plantation owners (but we'd all agree a good one).
If fetuses were granted personhood it would forever alter the freedoms women currently have (though to what extent is up for debate). I see a strong connection and if you don't you aren't thinking very hard.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2012 05:38:49 PM · #346 |
Sorry guys, too many people are talking and I'm about to get slammed in the new three hours at work. I probably won't be able to respond. I already feel bad not having read Judith's longer post 10 posts back.
The only thing I'll say before leaving is that "personhood" is far from a "mystical" concept Ed. If you think along those lines they we have nothing further to say because you don't understand the philosophical arguments at all.
This is from the very text of the Roe v. Wade decision: "[Texas] argues that the fetus is a Ă¢€˜person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case (or Roe's case) collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 17:41:21. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 06:00:20 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
I fail to see how being asked to keep a personal morality confined to one's own life the same kind of 'imposition' as being denied or stripped of certain rights and freedoms. That's really the crux of the matter when it comes to many of these kinds of issues. One side thinks that other people living THEIR lives differently from themselves is having something imposed on them, where the other side actually has to deal with not being ALLOWED to do something. Hardly seems like the same kind of imposing, does it? |
I'm sure the plantation farmers of the 1850s felt exactly the same... |
It's flip answers like this that really get people worked up, just so you know. |
Did you read my explanation above? It wasn't a flip answer at all.
Actually the parallels are striking. A people group was previous denied personhood which allowed a population freedom to act in certain ways. When they were granted personhood it changed forever the way others could act. It was in every way an imposition on the plantation owners (but we'd all agree a good one).
If fetuses were granted personhood it would forever alter the freedoms women currently have (though to what extent is up for debate). I see a strong connection and if you don't you aren't thinking very hard. |
That's got to be the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Comparing living, breathing, walking around enslaved people to a group of cells. Sorry doc, I don't see your point at all on this one. You show me a 6 week old fetus that can walk around picking cotton, and I'll grant you personhood for it. Otherwise, it only has the potential to become a person. I've said it before, but it might be worth repeating. I won't tell you what to do with your body and you don't tell me what to do with mine. Why is that concept so hard for people to grasp? I would never force someone to have an abortion. And I would never force a woman to have a child she didn't want. Tell me this, if abortion suddenly got outlawed, and woman were putting their kids up for adoption left and right, who would adopt them? Who would pay for their upbringing? The conservatives want to outlaw abortion, they want to outlaw contraception, they want to do away with all "entitlement" programs, no welfare, no social security, no medical, no maternity leave, no daycare, no, no, no. Where do they think these women and kids are going to go? |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 06:08:36 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I would frame it differently and say that women, to the greatest extent possible, ought to be in a position where they become pregnant only when they want to become pregnant. Assuming we have the same thing in mind, of course that is a worthy goal to pursue. No one wants to go through this, even if they have no moral qualms about it. If I had to choose a policy goal, I'd focus on reducing elective abortions in the second trimester, because in my opinion the morality gets murkier the more developed the fetus and the closer to viability when there is no medical necessity. That would mean focusing on young girls and giving them better access to contraceptives and better education in a variety of different areas. Now, I hate to be pessimistic, but I know that I have already run into a brick wall with that last suggestion with the folks on your side of this issue. If we couldn't even agree on making contraceptives available to minors, or providing better education about sexuality, how are you going to convince the anti-abortion folks that abortion should remain legal even though they're morally opposed to it? |
I don't know. Next time you have this conversation with someone you can tell them you know a guy who is on their side but he thinks having readily available contraception is much better than having abortions. At least it's a point of compromise. If I'm talking to someone I can say I know a guy that's on their side who says she wants fewer abortions. Would you be willing to have some of these roadblocks like notifications and such if contraception was readily available?
See? We can make at least a modicum of progress even here on Rant. There's hope for the world!
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 22:56:46. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 06:10:34 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
That's got to be the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Comparing living, breathing, walking around enslaved people to a group of cells. |
Sorry Kelli, that statement is reductionist to the absurd. Technically you and I also reduce to a definition of "a group of cells". We just have more. It's not a distinction that carrys any weight. As for the rest, do I even need to go into it? Ability to do things is now a requirement for personhood? That's gonna get you into trouble and you know it.
Message edited by author 2012-02-23 18:12:07. |
|
|
|
02/23/2012 07:05:17 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Kelli:
That's got to be the biggest stretch I've ever seen. Comparing living, breathing, walking around enslaved people to a group of cells. |
Sorry Kelli, that statement is reductionist to the absurd. Technically you and I also reduce to a definition of "a group of cells". We just have more. It's not a distinction that carrys any weight. As for the rest, do I even need to go into it? Ability to do things is now a requirement for personhood? That's gonna get you into trouble and you know it. |
Comparing an embryo or a fetus to slavery is pretty reductionist too. |
|
