[syriacus]

That is not my position. That's twice you've mistakenly ascribed that same position to me.

Perhaps I need more information.

You'll notice that I'm willing to hear your clear explanation of your position.

If you convince me that blastospheres aren't human beings, I could "go with the flow" of the Brave New World

I don't like being considered a radical right-wing, old fogey, stick-in-the-mud, research obstructionist.

1. I asked, "What would it take to convince you that blastospheres should not be destroyed?" and you answered, "That they had a human soul."

2. I asked if "Persons" are protected by the constitution because they have souls. You said, "No."

I'm having a hard time resolving your two answers, with the amount of information you have given me. You could help by explaining away the discrepancy that is hindering my understanding. I'm not deliberately trying to misrepresent you.

Think of my old mind as the 'core' of an IBM 360-30, that requires the data from few more punch cards before processing begins.

[jas3]

1. I asked, "What would it take to convince you that blastospheres should not be destroyed?" and you answered, "That they had a human soul."

2. I asked if "Persons" are protected by the constitution because they have souls. You said, "No."

I'm having a hard time resolving your two answers, with the amount of information you have given me.

I don't understand why these answers are at all inconsistent with each other. If a blastosphere had a soul I would consider it worthy of legal and moral protection. The Constitution protects people without reference to their souls. I didn't write the Constitution, so a statement on why this document does or does not protect individuals shouldn't imply my agreement with why it was writen with certain protection and without others. If you asked me if the Constitution protected slavery, and I said YES, you would not then assume that I was pro-slavery.

jas3