Sort By:
Aug 29, 2013
Eewanco, this is not about abortion. It is about euthanasia. If l can keep part of you alive indefinitely, when will l have the legal right to terminate care? It is a reductio ad absurdum.
-26 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 30, 2012
Do I have issues because I see something that is clearly not there, or because I'm pro-life?
Jan 30, 2012
Do we really want to encourage robots to harvest and maintain human tissues in order to gain civil rights? Surely we can think of a less Terminator-esque way...
-22 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 30, 2012
I wonder if Scott is trying to make a misguided sort of pro-abortion political argument, the idea being that incubating one's "own" cells in a robot and considering it a legal person is absurd. Of course, this betrays a serious ignorance of biology: The cell involved in conception and pregnancy is a combination of cells from two people, and has its own DNA separate from the mother. So, from a philosophical standpoint at least, it is its own person. The only difference between you now and you when your mother conceived you is size: You are the same person. You didn't magically transform from being your mother to being your own self when you were born. If you were part of your mother, you wouldn't need a placenta to isolate the blood supplies. People instinctively realize this; those who want their pregnancies talk to their unborn babies, remark on what "they" do, attribute personalities to them, and basically treat them as they do when they are born except they happen to be confined in the mother temporarily.
+8 Rank Up Rank Down
Jan 27, 2012
I think Mr. Wal-bot-o is a better name...it sounds marketable... ...pop-disco video comes to mind!

Get the new Dilbert app!