https://twitter.com/hboulware/status/761674592284835840
Today, in “What Happens When Environmentalist Idiots Have Too Much Time on Their Hands”:
The U.S. movement to imbue land and rivers with legal personhood status is gaining ground: https://t.co/5RQIaVl6tQ pic.twitter.com/aqjLDrkaDJ
— Outside Magazine (@outsidemagazine) August 5, 2016
Gaining ground, eh?
Wait. What? https://t.co/ND9lS4Mtav
— Kathleen McKinley (@KatMcKinley) August 5, 2016
Sigh – I'm a liberal, but do you know how stupid this sounds?
— Dave (@RetireInReutte) August 5, 2016
You think it sounds stupid? Can you imagine how unborn babies must feel?
I'm thinking a river shouldn't achieve personhood status before a human unborn child. Just me.
— Kathleen McKinley (@KatMcKinley) August 5, 2016
Definitely not just you, Kathleen.
How about rivers still in the fetal stage? https://t.co/mbO19hPSxt
— Jason (@jasonelevation) August 5, 2016
https://twitter.com/kcherrick/status/761675056502099968
As long as we don’t apply this principle to the unborn. https://t.co/xFN5KuHWzN
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) August 5, 2016
We could start with, I don't know, actual people in the womb. https://t.co/90pLCGdqyC
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) August 5, 2016
@outsidemagazine So a river is a person….but a baby in the womb is not. Okay….
— Zor-El (@Adam4004) August 5, 2016
Things with legal personhood: rocks
Things lacking legal personhood: tiny persons https://t.co/vq9kh9Uk5b— PoliMath (@politicalmath) August 5, 2016
Rivers – yes.
Fetuses – no.Makes a ton of sense. https://t.co/dp6jguIHGD
— NeoN: Automataster (@neontaster) August 5, 2016
How did we get here?
https://twitter.com/GlomarResponder/status/761674687109824512