Friday, 31 July 2009

Today's Battles

An educational set this time, non-confrontational (thank goodness).

Over at BeliefNet, talking about the ethics of surgical body modification.
One of the Templeton fellows today gave a presentation about transgender Christians and the church. During the Q&A, someone in our group put forth a question that hadn't occurred to me, concerning this issue. If we accept that people who claim that they need to have sex reassignment surgery to make their bodies conform to who they believe they truly are, then on what basis do we deny people who claim that they need to have one or more limbs amputated to feel whole their moral and/or legal right to the desired surgery?
Indeed.

And at Perlo II: philosophy and literature, introducing some Science to Arts majors. Which seems to be going remarkably smoothly, even though it's rather like the test described in Parkinson's Law Chapter 5:
They will finally be invited to try their eloquence on a Baptist Congress, the object being to induce those present to rock and roll. Those who fail will be liquidated.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Zoe, They are similar and I only have one argument. If allowing a person to surgically remove their limb results in that person being considered disabled, then there is an adaquate grounds to say no to allowing the surgery.

For most people, the loss of a limb would imply a disability and allow that person to be considered disabled in the eyes of U.S. law.

Audrey

Perlo said...

You opine: "And at Perlo II: philosophy and literature, introducing some Science to Arts majors. Which seems to be going remarkably smoothly, even though it's rather like the test described in Parkinson's Law Chapter 5:

They will finally be invited to try their eloquence on a Baptist Congress, the object being to induce those present to rock and roll. Those who fail will be liquidated."

I must be losing it this morning because I do not see the connection between your "Today's Battles" post and the discussion over at Perlo.