Scott Klusendorf has been gracious enough to provide an in-depth response to Dadahead's argument regarding prolife metaphysics. Dadahead in turn has been gracious enough to give a long response to Scott's response.
I think it is interesting that Dadahead feels that his view of personhood has nothing to do with metaphysics.
He says, "What I'm arguing is that 'person' is just a word, defined conventionally, as opposed to deriving its meaning by somehow rigidly designating some ontological type/natural kind of 'personhood.' The word 'person' is like the word 'tall'; convention, guided, as always, but the objective facts of the matter, determines when its use is appropriate."
Does anyone else find the second sentence to be an odd sentence? Maybe I'm completely missing what Dadahead is trying to say but I was unaware that there were "objective facts" regarding whether one human being is or isn't a "person."
Another obvious point of contention I have with Dadahead is when he says, "It's not so much that the anti-abortion view is suspect because it is endorsed by religions - it's that the view itself seems to be based solely, or at least heavily, on religion. I wouldn't hold it against the anti-choicers just because the Catholic Church agrees with them. That would be absurd, and self-defeating, seeing as how the Church agrees with me on other issues (e.g. the war). What I'm skeptical of is that there exists a totally non-religious argument against abortion."
I find this paragraph truly bizarre since Scott just made a prolife argument that wasn't based on religion at all. If Dadahead is looking for another prolife argument not based on religion he could also read Don Marquis' piece Why Abortion is Immoral.