- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I probably shouldn't go here, but what in hell have you been smoking? That is one of the most ridiculous statements I've seen on UT.
Tell me how this is so ridiculous. By the way, to which of the scenarios do you subscribe?
human life, not any life form. Or the right of an individual to own her own body v. the govt to own the body. Or for an individual' right to believe when human life begins v. govt dictating when an individual's life ends?
First, of course I meant human life. I didn't think I needed to spell things out so explicitly, but thanks for reminding me to do so. Second, you are talking about rights and policy, not ethical principles, which is what I'm talking about. Policy analysis and ethical decisionmaking are two different skill sets. Your focus on rights leads me to believe that legal reasoning (i.e., rules and consequences) might dominate your decisionmaking, rather than principled reasoning. Would you agree?
You boil the issue down to your own personal definitions and then declare UT posters contradictory? Please.
I did not offer any "personal definitions" and as for calling UT posters "contradictory"? I did no such thing. Please, indeed.
