So the "pro-choice" position in the abortion debate is not really neutral on the underlying moral and theological question;it implicitly rests on the assumption that the Catholic Church's teaching on the moral status of the fetus-that it is a person from the moment of conception-is false
堕胎自由支持者说：①胎儿身份（是否为人）有争议、有赖于道德立场②根据自由原则法律不应依赖于任一道德立场→法律不应干涉堕胎自由。
作者指出，①预设了天主教中胎儿为人的教义的错误性，所以法律此处的允许，并不中立。
The case for permitting abortion is no more neutral than the case for banning it. Both positions presuppose some answer to the underlying moral and religious controversy.
the moral requirement that we treat persons as ends rather than as mere means limits the way we may treat our bodies and ourselves."Man cannot dispose over himself because he is not a thing;he is not his own property"
bailout outrage
systematic forces...product of forces beyond their control...if this is true,there's good reason to question their claim to outsized compensation when times are good.
