Yes my logic is inferior because you say so. Just like a fetus “molests” it’s mother because the lass above says so.

You have no idea how ridiculous you are. I spent years avoiding people like this in University just to find them online populating spaces that could otherwise be productive.

None of you have any intent or ability to argue honestly which is why I just “lol” and move on. Because it’s a pointless exercise in frustration with the online narcissists.

Lol.

Lol.

Because a sperm left unmolested will not become a person. A fetus left unmolested will. Should be pretty straightforward. I don’t see the logical basis for your objection. A fetus is a complete potential person. A sperm is not.

And I’m staunchly pro-choice. But this is a philosophical conversation and our politics have no place in it.

“This would lead to some absurd consequences – if the state has an interest in protecting potential persons, then they would have an interest in banning products like contraceptives or procedures like vasectomies. But surely, at least for now, this is not what the Court suggests.”

This is where I stopped reading. How absolutely moronic. There’s an obvious difference between aborting potential and preventing potential. That the author just calls this an “absurdity” without any recognition of that material difference undermines his entire analysis.

Thank you. Well said. Though I’d suggest Camus’ position stems from a deeper recognition of power structures. No one ever asks who was in charge and what were they doing before the colonists arrived?