In general, I agree with you. Yet, consider the abortion debate:

- One side passionately maintains that the developing organism within the mother is a person (and thus possessing of various rights) from the moment of conception

- Another side passionately maintains that the same entity cannot be considered a person until some (varying) period of time subsequent of conception

Two different views of "personhood" with strongly divergent results as to what can be done to the thing in question. If the quote in the summary is followed:

Then I expect that for some "utility" could stand in as a valid justification to viewing a clone as not-a-person.

Indeed, by AD 37 the Christians and the Jews themselves hadn't really gotten themselves sorted apart.

If it's all the same, I'd rather it find and image Dejah Thoris ...

"Jimmy, bet ya' a Miller Lite that you can't hit that thing with yer twenty-two."

Nicole Kidman is from Australia and she seems pretty compatible. Wait, that's not your point ... nevermind.

It's easier than thinking.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Ah! I had figured it was a codeword to activate the sleeper cells ...

You know, I might actually pay for a Mercedes, if the delivery method involved the successful deployment of rockets, parachutes and giant airbags ... that would be cool.

The hostile nature of a dry environment and thin atmosphere has nothing on the abuse afforded by the average consumer.

The poster could have meant as in sharpening. Although that's a pucker-inducing thought ...