Replies

I was hoping you would respond with something of good news, but I was sure you couldn’t.

Scalia had been quite clear in the of his inability to see prenatal personhood:

(personhood never ranking)

http://prolifeprofiles.com/antonin-scalia-and-abortion

Let’s check out Clarence Thomas personhood for the unborn status:

http://prolifeprofiles.com/tier4 (personhood never ranking).

Thomas came “close” to personhood for the first time last year, but only because he feared a racial component in the application of selective abortion, not the person but the race. So, hopefully he can get there.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/how-fetal-personhood-emerged-as-the-next-stage-of-the-abortion-wars

You can win $100 if you can prove either of these “rankings” incorrect, by the way.

http://prolifeprofiles.com/offer

Let’s pray for their souls, they need it more than most people, considering their positions in life. They truly have a lot to answer for.

I see I was wrong about Scalia and Thomas--- I was not aware of that information. I'm glad you corrected the record, but (O Lord!) I wish it were otherwise. This is a grievous thing.

I don't like the way "personhood" has dominated the discussion . There should never have been a distinction between "human being" and "human person." That's gotten it all gunked up with social, psychological, and ontological discussions about this mysterious "quality" we're supposed to have, to be "persons in the full sense of the word."

On his earth, as we live now, there is only one kind of person, and that is "human." And there is only one kind of human, that is "person." Damn the sophists, the dissembling philosophers. Damn the damn lawyers who strain out a gnat and let in a Sherman tank.