(Click here to continue on the main path)

Think for just a minute about what you are saying. Ann tried to define relevance narrowly, as a scientific question. Everyone jumped on her for that. Dee suggested that a theory of rights might help us determine what is relevant in some cases. John pointed out that in the case of abortion, trying to decide which facts are relevant raised questions like "What is a person?" and "What is the moral status of the embryo?" and "When does the embryo bear the image of God?"

I think most of what you are saying here tends in the same direction -- toward the same conclusion -- that our individual moral questions are part of a network of concepts and principles. We can't answer the questions in isolation.

To use a bit of jargon from the philosophy of science, our moral questions and answers are 'theory bound.' How does that strike you?