At 01:30 AM 12/13/2008, B. wrote:
>Michael,
>
>Andie identified the person who wrote the original essay outlining the
>argument, MIT's Judith Jarvis Thompson.
>
>In it, the essayist deals with what you say -- that it does indeed grant
>the "personhood" of the dependent being you are suddenly woken up &
>attached to. In fact, Judith at the outset says, (paraphrasing) -- okay,
>fine, let's *concede* the personhood of the dependent being in the
>thought-experiment; we'll take a different a tack, then, and still show
>why pro-lifers arguments are still ethically wrong.
>
>The attitude of your argument seems to be the very Catholic one of, "You
>had sex, so now, ha, pay the consequences."
>
>-B.
>
>
>
>Michael Smith wrote:
>
>"It grants the opposition's core premise -- the personhood of the fetus.
>My personal shorthand for this is 'yes-buttery': the liberal's
>characteristic response to any reactionary argument always opens with the
>phrase 'Yes, but...'"
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
"let's be civil and nice, but not to the point of obeying the rules of debate as defined by liberal blackmail (in which, discomfort caused by a challenge is seen as some vague form of harassment)."
-- Dwayne Monroe, 11/19/08
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws