A Semi-Victory for CD

I just checked my e-mail, and Professor Thomas apparently still disagrees with me. However, he says that it is because good philosophy depends on "quality of argument" in addition to agreement. I have no idea what that means, but this whole ordeal has still helped me in a way, because I get extra credit on the next quiz for taking the time to explain my arguments. Also, there will be questions about my messages on the quiz, but I'm not allowed to answer them (obviously). Again, I'm not sure exactly why the professor disagrees with me, but I think I at least made a pretty strong case for my position. The lecture starts in about 45 minutes, so I'll probably find out what he was talking about. I don't mind telling you that I'm a little nervous, but it's not like I can lose points if he comes up with something better. I'm just glad I finally got a chance to debate about abortion (I've been studying methods of argumentation and various cases for and against abortion for the past few months), and I'm definitely not done yet. This was just about the plane analogy. We still have to finish talking about "A Defense of Abortion," and I've read "Unstringing the Violinist" by Greg Koukl (excellent work; you should definitely read it now. There's a link in another post), so I know where the faults are in Thomson's justification. Also, I got a comment saying that sex has other benefits, like endorphins and such, but I'll quickly respond to that by saying that it still serves the fundamental purpose of reproduction. After all, this computer I'm using could work pretty well as a paperweight, but it wasn't designed for that purpose. I just thought I'd clear that up. I'm not arguing that some actions don't have extra benefits. I'm just saying that those are accessories to the main purpose. By the way, I'm still not sure why I'm spending so much time on philosophy when I'm a communications major. I guess it's just a good change of pace.