So, I came upon this
article.
Here is a
newspaper article about it for those of you who don't want to bother reading a whole journal article. And by "those of you," I mean, "everyone."
I have a couple questions that will hopefully stir a little debate and flog a horse already deader than Eohippus1. I say, "Why not?" The conclusion seems to
(
Read more... )
Comments 163
(The comment has been removed)
Probably my HTML fail.
Reply
Reply
2. Funny...I really disliked what I read of Swift in school.
Reply
Reply
You have to do far more work when it's out to keep it alive.
Reply
It's great the authors are sincere. Sincere people are wonderful, it doesn't mean they should be making decisions for the rest of us.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I thought we were supposed to be listening to experts who have studied these difficult and complicated issues objectively, rationally and using the best scientific consensus.
Reply
Uh, interesting. I would define person as a human being who can survive outside a parasitic environment. You can also say that a person is a citizen (and has rights... but let's ignore that), and you're not a citizen until you are born. My definition also makes late-term fetuses also potential persons (potential because you don't know yet), but most states have laws against late-term abortions anyway. Not to say that I support carrying a child to term if you've obviously had one for a long ass time, but I understand where the laws against late-term comes from.
You 'logically follows' guys are missing the point of an argument: You have to accept the premise. This definition is their premise, and if you don't accept it then it doesn't matter what logically follows.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
That said, the line between non-person and person is somewhat arbitrary (though informed by science, philosophy, religion, usw.) The authors may be sincere, but I don't see their viewpoint becoming common enough to make any actual changes in law within the next, oh... century.
Reply
Leave a comment