Pages

▼

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.
at

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousTuesday, August 04, 2009 11:08:00 pm

    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

    ReplyDelete
  2. BobTuesday, August 25, 2009 11:52:00 pm

    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.

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous commenters - please add a signature (doesn't have to be your real name) on each post of yours. Anne O'Namus, Norm D. Ploom, Angry from Kent, Demosthenes, or even your real initials, it doesn't matter.

Commenters are expected to be polite to each other, but the same standard doesn't apply to comments regarding me.

Australian commenters are very very strongly advised to publish anonymously. Sydney alone has more defamation actions than the entire USA and UK. Nearly double that of the UK in fact.

As Google does not reliably inform me that a comment has been posted, and I have no control over first publication, I assert that all comments are innocently disseminated under the NSW DEFAMATION ACT 2005 - SECT 32 and similar acts.