dissenting futilitarian no. 10

2
D EAR reader willing to read , dear statistical rarity: Have we exposed Motion 312 for what it is? There are many people in this land who will scan the following and shout, ‘Yeah!' ( a) motion 312 is A devious effort ( involving irrelevant pretense about scien- tific facts) to remove human rights from those who have them. In 2012?! For some the Motion is exposed by those very words. But there are also many people who believe the exact same thing ( the Motion unveiled!) but that it is different words that unveil it. These words: ( B) motion 312 is a reasoned plea for innocent inquiry into human beginnings . Friends, these are your conclusions , and it is fine by me that this is what you have concluded , but would you kindly tell us why ? Because, sadly - and you know it is true - anyone can make a statement but few can make an argument . So: what is the evidence that ( a) , or ( B) , is true? ‘society has moved on' Y ou recall, I hope ( see issue 9) , the EVIDENCE that exposes Motion 312 as ( A) a deceptive assault on existing human rights . That evidence involves ( 1) the fact that the Motion can have no other purpose than the criminalization of abor- tion , which is logically the only possible outcome of any change it might prompt . M312 is the first necessary step to personhood initiative or abortion restrictions . Why else ?" ( 2) It involves the fact that we already know the answer to the question it invites science to settle . It 's a LIE . It wastes government time and taxpayer dollars searching for an answer that ' s already universally known ." Just what is already “universally known "? That a zygote or an embryo or a fetus is a human being. Now [ m312 supporters ] think they 're scientists , breaking the news that the human fetus is - wait for it - HUMAN ! Not dog , not cat , but HUMAN ! Wow ." ( 3) And it involves the further fact that in the context of the Criminal Code there is only one relevant meaning of human being ', and that is ‘legal person '. Where the Code is concerned, the only way to answer the question What is a human being ' is the way the Code itself answers it: to say that ‘A human being is a legal person ', the person we have chosen to protect. ‘Born person' is the only relevant meaning of ‘human being' in rela- tion to the Code. The meaning was set and “society has moved on ." An opponent of Motion 312 writes: The [ motion 's ] use of the phrase human being ' is unfortunate because it has two distinct meanings , one legal , as in Subsection 223 ( 1 ) , and one biological . One correct [ in this context ] and one incorrect and just waiting to be exploited ." mmm It is said that supporters of the Motion have no response to these charges; all they can do is to lie, stamp their feet, insist on falsehoods, and invoke the unshared religious dogma really driving this attack on human rights. Is it true, that the Motion's defenders just want to brainlessly proselytize," that “They got nothing but semantics and weaselwords , And stomping their little feet "É? You have nothing but opinionism ! Bring facts or go away ." Well, let's see if they can do that. Shall we hear from the defenders of Motion 312? a QUESTION asked A s we have seen, a key question about the Motion concerns its intent. The primary intent of the Motion ( say its suppor- ters) is to answer the question, What is it that the wording of Criminal Code 223 ( 1 ) now permits us to kill ? We all know that the law, given that very subsection, currently does not extend protections to the unborn, and in that sense allows the killing of any unborn human being. Perhaps there might be nuances to observe on that point, but this much is clear to everyone: a fetus must be born alive to enjoy rights ." The law has stepped away from protecting the resident of the womb - any unborn human prior to complete birth ( both before 16 weeks of pregnancy, when most abortions in Canada are said to occur, and after 16 weeks) . And the Motion is asking, what is it that we have chosen not to protectÉ ? It's purpose, says the Motion's author, is to promote an informed dialogue of that law [ Subsection 223 ( 1 ) ] so as to lead to closure of an important issue left open by our Courts ." Have we ever asked the question left un- answered by the Courts in 1988: what is it that the law has refrained from protec- ting ? Or are we just presuming to have done so? mmm In 1988 Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wil - son, in her ruling in R v Morgentaler ( the very decision in which the Court ruled that a fetus must be born alive to enjoy rights) , also said: The precise point in the development of the fetus at which the state s interest in its protection becomes compelling I leave to the informed judgement of the legislature , which is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all the relevant disciplines ." This remark suggests that, if more of the relevant information were taken into account, the creature in the womb might in fact be considered to deserve protection at some point before birth. Presumably, that desire to pro- tect might hinge on how close the fetus was to born Canadians, might hinge on what it was or had become at this stage or that. And so what the Motion proposes is that Canadians inform themselves about the nature of the being that the law has chosen not to protect. mmm The author of the Motion has acknowledged that the law has its reasons for dropping that protection. This section of the Criminal Code, he said, used to have a further part: the second part of the law went on to say that it was still a serious offence to take a child s life before birth .... in 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada deleted that second part." It was not an accident, a slip of the pen; the Court had its reasons and set them forth: but, again, the Motion is not asking about those reasons. It asks about something else, about the other issue raised by Justice Wilson : the unexamined reasons for which we might ( if we considered them, and thereafter judged this warranted) , think of restoring some degree of protection. The Supreme Court's reasons for limiting that protection are hardly irrelevant, since they involve considerations of justice . But if you ask what the Motion asks ( What is it that the law in fact permits us to kill?), do you actually threaten the administration of justice? By asking this question, do you gain leverage over legislators or over the Supreme Court, so that now their hands are tied and the March of Injustice cannot be stopped? So, here is the point of Motion 312. To quote an ordinary citizen, if someone on the street carefully cut open my eight - month pregnant stomach with a scalpel , inside they d find a fully -formed human , a little girl or boy , ready to take on life on the outside . If the same person took a rock and began hammering on my belly you , along with 99 percent of Canadians , would be horrified . Because that s a living person inside . Yet , if I were to take my 36 -week pregnant body to a local abortion clinic , under current legislation , it would be legal for them to dispose of my baby ." It is indeed legal, and it was made legal for a reason. But is there anything more to consider, about this situation, which is somewhat odd? Is there anything that is already known, by people we trust, about the nature of that thing in the womb, that we might benefit from hearing? And so the Motion asks, in the language of a Motion, what is it that the law has refrained from protecting ? the REASON for asking B ut there is no need to ask this, people have replied; there is ( contra Justice Wilson 's suggestion) nothing for us to become informed about, because it is already clear to everyone what it is that is in the womb . Here s the thing : no pro -choicer I know denies that a fetus is human ; we deny that it is a person ." M312 isn 't needed to correct some Widespread Misconcep - tion that fetuses are fish .... Do you have evidence that people think it 's a kangaroo ? a Cuttlefish ?" Perfect! say the Defenders of the Motion, let us test the very claim you have made. Let us indeed look at the “evidence " of what “people think ." If you ask Canadians ‘What is in the womb?' what is it that they say? ( Judge for yourself whether Canadians are already clear on this .) ( i ) Some say it is Human Matter , like hair or muscle. a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA [ but this does not make it ] a human being .... a flake of dandruff from my head is human , but it is not a human being , and in this sense , neither is a zygote ." [ an embryo is ] A tiny gestational sac ." A fetus is a blob of cells that is part of a woman ." ( ii ) Some say it is an organism of the spe- cies homo sapiens . A zygote is an organism ; it is NOT a human being ." The zygote qualifies as a human organism ." ( iii ) Some say it is a complete individual human being , like you or me, only at an early stage of life. A zygote who is a member of the species homo sapiens , in plain English , is a human being ." It is a human being . all the potential for human life exists within it ." N o. 10 17 aug 2012 } } The D I S S E N T I N G F U T I L I T A R I A N { { L E T T E R S T O c a n a d i a n s F R O M A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E C T O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E S T I G AT I O N I N T O O U R H U M A N I T Y S u re , w e c o u ld as k ; b u t, r e a ll y , le t s n o t! W e k n o w w h a t w e w a n t; l e t s k e e p w h a t w e g o t ! B

Upload: dissenting-futilitarian

Post on 12-Mar-2016

228 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

DESCRIPTION

Issue 10 of a newspaper on the debate over the ‘Human Being Motion’ (Motion 312)

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Dissenting Futilitarian no. 10

D EAR reader w illing to

read , dear statistical

rarity: Have we exposed Motion 312 for

what it is? There are many people in this land

who will scan the following and shout, ‘Yeah!'

(a) mo t ion 3 1 2 i s A dev ious ef f ort

(involving irrelevant pretense about scien-

tific facts) to remov e human rights from

those w ho hav e them . In 2012?!

For some the Motion is exposed by those very

words. But there are also many people who

believe the exact same thing (the Motion

unveiled!) but that it is different words that

unveil it. These words:

(B) motion 312 is a reasoned plea for

innocent inquiry into human beginnings .

Friends, these are your conclusions , and

it is fine by me that this is what you have

concluded , but would you kindly tell us

why? Because, sadly - and you know it is

true - anyone can make a statement but

f ew can make an argument . So: what is

the evidence that (a), or (B), is true?

‘ s o c i e t y h a s m o v e d o n '

You recall, I hope (see issue 9), the

EVIDENCE that exposes Motion 312

as (A) a deceptive assault on existing

human rights . That evidence involves (1)the fact that the Motion can hav e no other

purpose than the cr iminalization of abor-

tion , which is logically the only possible

outcome of any change it might prompt .

“M312 is the first necessary step to personhood initiative

or abortion restrictions. Why else?"

(2) It involves the fact that we already

know the answ er to the question it

inv ites science to settle .

“It's a LIE. It wastes government time and taxpayer dollars

searching for an answer that's already universally known."

Just what is already “universally known"? That a

zygote or an embryo or a fetus is a human being.

“Now [m312 supporters] think they're scientists, breaking the news that the human fetus is - wait for it - HUMAN! Not

dog, not cat, but HUMAN! Wow."

(3) And it involves the further fact that

in the context of the Criminal Code there is only

one relevant meaning of ‘human being ',

and that is ‘legal person '. Where the Code

is concerned, the only way to answ er the

question ‘What is a human being ' is the

way the Code itself answers it: to say that ‘A

human being is a legal person ', the person

we have chosen to protect. ‘Born person' is the

only relevant meaning of ‘human being' in rela-

tion to the Code. The meaning was set and “society

has moved on." An opponent of Motion 312 writes:

“The [motion's] use of the phrase ‘human being' is

unfortunate because it has two distinct meanings, one

legal, as in Subsection 223(1), and one biological. One

correct [in this context] and one incorrect and just

waiting to be exploited."

m m mIt is said that supporters of the Motion have

no response to these charges; all they can do

is to lie, stamp their feet, insist on falsehoods,

and invoke the unshared religious dogma really

driving this attack on human rights. Is it

true, that the Motion's defenders just want

“to brainlessly proselytize," that “They got nothing but

semantics and weaselwords, And stomping their little feet"ÉÉ?

“You have nothing but opinionism! Bring facts or go away."

Well, let's see if they can do that. Shall we

hear from the defenders of Motion 312?

a QU ESTION a s k e d

As we have seen, a key question about

the Motion concerns its intent. The

primary intent of the Motion (say its suppor-

ters) is to answer the question, What is it

that the wording of Criminal Code 223(1)

now permits us to kill? We all know that

the law, given that very subsection, currently

does not extend protections to the unborn, and

in that sense allows the killing of any unborn

human being. Perhaps there might be nuances

to observe on that point, but this much is clear

to everyone:

“a fetus must be born alive to enjoy rights."

The law has stepped away from protecting

the resident of the womb - any unborn human

prior to complete birth (both before 16 weeks

of pregnancy, when most abortions in Canada

are said to occur, and after 16 weeks). And

the Motion is asking, w hat is it that w e

hav e chosen not to protectÉ? It's purpose,

says the Motion's author, is

“to promote an informed dialogue of that law [Subsection 223(1)] so as to lead to closure of an important issue left

open by our Courts."

Have we ever asked the question left un-

answered by the Courts in 1988: w hat is it

that the law has ref rained f rom protec-

ting? Or are we just presuming to have done so?

m m mIn 1988 Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wil-

son, in her ruling in R v Morgentaler (the very

decision in which the Court ruled that a fetus

must be born alive to enjoy rights), also said:

“The precise point in the development of the fetus at which

the state’s interest in its protection becomes ‘compelling’

I leave to the informed judgement of the legislature, which

is in a position to receive guidance on the subject from all

the relevant disciplines."

This remark suggests that, if more of the

relevant information were taken into account,

the creature in the womb might in fact be

considered to deserve protection at some point

before birth. Presumably, that desire to pro-

tect might hinge on how close the fetus was

to born Canadians, might hinge on what it

was or had become at this stage or that. And

so what the Motion proposes is that Canadians

inform themselves about the nature of the

being that the law has chosen not to protect.

m m mThe author of the Motion has acknowledged

that the law has its reasons for dropping that

protection. This section of the Criminal Code,

he said, used to have a further part:

“the second part of the law went on to say that it was

still a serious offence to take a child’s life before birth ....

in 1988 the Supreme Court of Canada deleted that second part."

It was not an accident, a slip of the pen; the Court

had its reasons and set them forth: but, again, the

Motion is not asking about those reasons. It asks

about something else, about the other issue

raised by Justice Wilson : the unexamined

reasons for which we might (if we considered

them, and thereafter judged this warranted),

think of restoring some degree of protection.

The Supreme Court's reasons for limiting that

protection are hardly irrelevant, since they

involve considerations of justice . But if

you ask what the Motion asks (What is it

that the law in fact permits us to kill?), do

you actually threaten the administration of

justice? By asking this question, do you gain

leverage over legislators or over the Supreme

Court, so that now their hands are tied and

the March of Injustice cannot be stopped?

So, here is the point of Motion 312. To quote

an ordinary citizen,

“if someone on the street carefully cut open my eight-

month pregnant stomach with a scalpel, inside they’d find

a fully-formed human, a little girl or boy, ready to take

on life on the outside. If the same person took a rock and

began hammering on my belly you, along with 99 percent

of Canadians, would be horrified. Because that’s a living

person inside. Yet, if I were to take my 36-week pregnant

body to a local abortion clinic, under current legislation,

it would be legal for them to dispose of my baby."

It is indeed legal, and it was made legal for a

reason. But is there anything more to consider,

about this situation, which is somewhat odd?

Is there anything that is already known, by

people we trust, about the nature of that

thing in the womb, that we might benefit

from hearing? And so the Motion asks, in the

language of a Motion, w hat is it that the

law has ref rained f rom protecting?

t h e REASON f o r a s k i n g

But there is no need to ask this,

people have replied; there is (contra

Justice Wilson 's suggestion) nothing for

us to become informed about, because it is

already clear to ev eryone w hat it is

that is in the womb .

“Here’s the thing: no pro-choicer I know denies that a

fetus is human; we deny that it is a person."

“M312 isn't needed to correct some Widespread Misconcep-

tion that fetuses are fish.... Do you have evidence that

people think it's a kangaroo? a Cuttlefish?"

Perfect! say the Defenders of the Motion, let

us test the very claim you have made. Let

us indeed look at the “evidence" of what “people

think." If you ask Canadians ‘What is in the

womb?' what is it that they say? (Judge for

yourself whether Canadians are already

clear on this .)

(i) Some say it is Human Matter , like hair or

muscle.

“a fetus consists of human tissue and DNA [but this does not make it] a human being.... a flake of dandruff from my

head is human, but it is not a human being, and in this sense,

neither is a zygote."

“[an embryo is] A tiny gestational sac."

“A fetus is a blob of cells that is part of a woman."

(i i) Some say it is an organism of the spe-

cies homo sapiens .

“A zygote is an organism; it is NOT a human being."

“The zygote qualifies as a human organism."

(i i i) Some say it is a complete indiv idual

human being , like you or me, only at an early

stage of life.

“A zygote who is a member of the species homo sapiens, in

plain English, is a human being."

“It is a human being. all the potential for human life

exists within it."

No.

10 17 aug

2012}}

The DISSEN TING FU TILITARIAN {{

L ET T E R S TO c a n a d i a n s F R OM A C I T I Z E N O N T H E S U B J E CT O F T H E P R O P O S E D I N V E ST I G AT I O N I N TO O U R H U M A N I T Y

S u r e , w e c o u l d a s k ; b u t , r e a l l y , l e t ’ s n o t ! W e k n o w w h a t w e w a n t ; l e t ’ s k e e p w h a t w e g o t !

B

Page 2: Dissenting Futilitarian no. 10

“A fetus developing inside a human mother has DNA, It also

has a metabolism, Therefore it is a living organism. Since that

DNA is consistent with that of Homo Sapiens (Human Beings),

it can't possibly be any other species. Since the fetus has

DNA which is unique to itself, it cannot be anything other

than an individual homo sapiens (human being)."

“it is precisely because some abortions are targeted at

female human beings that they are being denounced as

heinous [an outrage against human beings - so,] what is at

stake in an abortion is the life of a human being."

(iv) Some say it is a potential human being

that is in there, not an actual human being.

“Make up your mind: Is it a ‘human being' or is it a fetus

with ‘all the potential for human life'."

“a zygote is a mass of Human Cells with the Potential to

be a human being!"

(v) Some say it is an insoluble mystery : no

one knows, or can know, what is in there. At

different times it might be different things

(at first you have “tiny forms that are amphibian," and

then, at some point - who knows when? - you

get a human being ... so let's say ‘birth').

“No-one can know when life really begins."

“The mainstream view in science is that we don’t know when

human life begins."

A re Canadians already clear on w hat is

in the womb? It is quite likely that all these

people know that there is human matter in-

volved throughout, but are any of them confused

about other things? Is the one who says “A zygote

is not an organism" just as well informed as the one

who says “[it] is an organism"? There are people who know what it takes to be an organism.

And - yes - they won't tell us how to value

an organism. But we don't ask them to. We

already value certain things: what we value

even says who we are (we are people who value

X but not Y), so all that matters is that we

find out whether we have, here, an X or a Y.

And if we did learn the facts, where there

are facts to learn (are we gullible? will we

take as a fact something offered without

evidence, or with ‘evidence' that is invisible

to us?) - well, what would happen then? If we

did learn the facts, it would help us to under-

stand the implications of the law, which is

the Motion's very rationale. Says its author,

“My favoured outcome of M312 would be that Parliament

and canadians are better informed about the implications

of Subsection 223(1)."

The implications of killing Y, “human tissue,"

are not very alarming (it is just excising

some flesh). But the implications of killing

X, “an individual human being" very much like

you and me, very much like like a baby, are

rather different. The implications of killing

“an organism", or something “we don’t know" the nature

of, may not be clear at all - yet even here there

are familiar legal issues (is the hunter's plea

that he “didn’tknow what was in that bush"

justification for emptying both barrels into

it? In some cases there is a duty to find out.)

Is it true that “no one nowhere knows what life is!"

Is it true that “No-one can know" what is in the

womb at any point - is that really true at all?

Or is it true that, at some point - this would

be “The point in the development of the fetus at which the

state’s interest in its protection becomes ‘compelling’" -

we are equipped to know, if we bother?

m m mCharge (2) was that we already know

the answer to the question the motion

asks : it is clear to ev eryone w hat is in

the womb . Is that a fact or is that false?

You decide, and as you do you might pay

some attention to the very people who have

made the charge that there is no “Widespread

Misconception" about the fetus that M-312 is

“needed to correct." For instance, this person, who

has insisted we don't need a special committee

to look into our humanity because ...

JJ: “everyone already knows a fetus is human."

In reply, THE DF asked: “OK - meaning? Human Matter,

as my hair; or a Human Being, as in me or you. Camille Paglia

says ‘Liberals have shrunk from' saying that abortion

‘results in the annihilation of concrete individuals.' Do you?

That's my question."

JJ: “If Paglia said that she's even more of a nitwit than i

thought. (By the way, I don't shrink from anything, Jack.)"

THE DF: “(Not accusing; just asking.) so you disagree with

Paglia on which point? (A) Liberals don't shrink from it? or

(B) There's no concrete individual in the womb?"

JJ: “It's a monumentally brainless statement. I disagree

with it in every way possible."

THE DF: “So you WOULD say, then, that there is no

‘concrete individual' who is ‘annihilated' in abortion."

JJ: “Mostly, a fishy looking thing the size of a raspberry

is scraped out of your uterus with some other mung and

flushed. That's it."

So, here is a person who says “everyone knows

a fetus is human" - but would not clarify what

being ‘human' means: what that says about

the fetus (there are four options, i-iv) - yet

could not agree that it is a “concrete individual" -

and then switched to the case of embryos (only

an embryo is the “size of a raspberry"), evidently

considered mere Human Matter , the category

people feel the least concern about killing.

Is it clear to ev eryone w hat is in the womb ,

or might it be that we would rather not know,

would rather be freed to believe what is easiest

on the conscience, or best for the activism: we

would rather not notice that, at some point

before birth, ‘human ' really does mean a

distinct indiv idual human being .

what, then, is the purpose of

Motion 312? It is to see if, at

some point prior to birth, we really do have

a “concrete individual" enough like you and me

that we would expect the state to consider its

welfare, in some way (how it might do so being

left open, by the process, to careful judgement).

Charge (2) we have just examined; what about

charge (1) : is it a fact that the crimina-

lization of abortion is the only logically

possible consequence of this motion?

Or (here is a different consequence) would

the Motion allow us to consider w hat is

univ ersally demonstrable about w hat is

present in the womb - tout court? ‘Ah,' say

the critics, ‘but that is just your trick: first

you clarify what is in the womb and then you

criminalize abortion.' Really? That is a rather

surprising admission, for three reasons.

1 st: There is, therefore, contra what you have

said, another purpose to the Motion : and

that is clarifying what is in the womb.

2nd: If this clarifying were done, resulting in

the conclusion that the womb contains Human

Matter (as many people insist it does, when

they are pressed on what they mean by calling

it ‘obviously human'), the implications of

killing Human Matter are not very disturbing.

Surely everyone agrees that abortion could not

be criminalized if that is what is ‘killed'.

So, again, it is false that the criminaliza-

tion of abortion is the motion 's only

possible effect .

And, 3rd: People will now say, ‘That will not

be the conclusion.' Interesting: what will be the

conclusion? ‘That during some part of gestation

we have something far more developed than

Human Matter .' Well, if you are already sure

about this - that asking ‘what is in the womb'

would not show you ‘Human-matter-through-

all-9-months' but lead to another conclusion:

that for some of those months we know that we

have something more - possibly a complete

organism of the species homo sapiens , or

even a complete indiv idual human being , like

you or me, only at an early stage of life - ...

then, in that case, isn't it false that crimina-

lizing abortion is the Motion's only possi-

ble outcome? For isn't the outcome now

that, We have something quite significant

to discuss? Alarms about ‘changing the law!'

strangely overlook the idea of revelations of

injustice that we have allowed ourselves

to uncover and that call for change. Can the

outcome not be, seeing we have more to

think about? Because if this is what you

are already able to predict, what you have

predicted is that we might perhaps discover a

creature that the state has an interest in protecting.

“If the truth is a danger to the status quo," says one

citizen, “the status quo probably needs to be changed."

Those who believe that criminalization is so

imminent seem to believe that reasoned inquiry

would reveal that (to quote Justice Wilson)

at some “point in the development of the fetus" we

would find something whose killing is not so

easy to defend (Justice Wilson had a hunch

“that it might fall somewhere in the second trimester").

So another possible consequence of the

Motion , which these critics remind us of, is

that it might rev eal to Canadians an

X that , indeed , they already value .

D D D

And the final charge, (3)? Is it a fact that

the Motion pretends to invite debate about

‘human being s ' when the only meaning-

ful debate in this context is about

‘legal persons '? As we have been told

repeatedly by opponents of the Motion, the

“legal personhood" or “Moral value" of the fetus

concerns a value we confer on it: science

clarifies what is so, but it cannot tell us how

much to care about it. - And that is precisely

why defenders of the Motion keep insisting

that the Motion is not about personhood !

It simply does not propose that we ask, how

much should w e value w hat is in the

womb? (Personhood.) It proposes that we ask,

w hat is in the womb? (A Human Being?) Is

there, in the womb, at any point, a distinct

member of the human kind like the rest

of us , the kind of thing that we would call,

based solely on its factually described actual

nature, a Human being? I suppose we might

continue to withold from that indiv idual

human being the protections now witheld

from it, but it would at last be clear what

we were witholding them from. (And is it at

all clear now? Are people informed?) So isn't

it false that in the context of the Criminal

Code the only definition of ‘human being '

that matters is the one the Code itself lays

down: a born person?

D D D

Is the Motion a Wolf - or has it been dressed in

the guise of a Wolf by those who are happier

if we don't ask the question that Justice

Wilson reminded us was never settled:

Is Canada, in its treatment of what is in

the womb, at any stage of its gestation,

witholding protections f rom an indiv idual

human being , a being that is in ev ery

respect but for this w itholding of

r ights a distinct member of the human

kind like the rest of us?I am, etc.

1 1 D i s s e nt i n g f ut i l ita r i a n . b lo g s p ot.ca

T HE WOLF?