[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

[syriacus]

I see now.

You are being consistent within your own world view.

You are more demanding than the constitution.

In order for you to feel that human beings should be protected, you demand they have a soul.