--- Ryan Delaney ryan.delaney@gmail.com wrote:
Avoiding them doesn't clarify anything, but neither does using them. In fact, using them only obsfucates the whole issue. If you say "a fetus is a human" in the article, people will read that according to their own pre-determined POV. Pro-lifers will read it as "A fetus is a human being" and pro-choicers will read it as "a fetus is human tissue". The sentence adds nothing to the article by itself.
IMHO your example is a bit simplistic, and does not assume good faith (or intellect) OTPO the reader. First of all, noone has been suggesting using language like "a fetus *is* a human being," but rather that ''a human fetus has some kind of connection with the concepts of "human being" and "human person," and that this connection has some consensus along general moral grounds--regardless of abortion politics.'' We can say that ''a human fetus is "human," (ie. "of humanity") and becomes a "human being" at some arbitrary unclear point - a point which is debated in religion, culture, society and law.'' There is no debate that the fetus and even the embryo is human--the debate is whether it is not yet human enough and still animal enough to deem deliberately harmful acts toward it as outside of murder laws, and within the realm of choice. This is distinguishing rational consensus from both absolutes, as the absolutes merely are what they are, and can be counted only as absolutes.
The philosopher in me is rising up in a rage on this point. Realistically, the only people for whom "person" and "human" have linguistic overlap are people who don't know how this sort of thing is talked about. Maybe it would be best to clearly define the difference between "human" (organic tissue with 42 chromosomes) and "person" (a rational, autonomous consciousness) and specify that some people think we are morally obligated to anything that is "human" while others think we are only obligated to "persons". Once those terms are clearly defined, "a fetus is human" would be uncontroversial and also meaningful.
If you recall, I started this thread in the context of "human rights", seeking some input regarding the basic issue of "human rights" concepts as they may or may not extend to the fetus, under any number of conditions. Now, you might say "human rights" is a exclusively biological concept, or that there is no "human right" to have personal freedom, or to not get bombed, or made to open wide while uncle Karim is forced to beat off in that general direction. Fortunately, however, "human rights" concepts *are* in fact generally agreeable (to most "humans" anyway), and form a basis for balanced neutral views toward cultural issues, which bear closely with NPOV. Golden Rule.
Some people got it, while others argue with me about the notion that even connecting human with fetus violates NPOV--which is ridiculous and equally sophistic as any hypothetical conjecture I might come up with. Its a cop-out *from* asserting an NPOV order, based on principles which may be commonly referred to as NPOV or "human rights" concepts. If its acceptable that a child at 1 minute old can be a "person," then its also acceptable to express claims that a fetus 1 minute before birth "isnt," and hence we're back to a *material (not philosophistry) discussion regarding a maximum agreeable gestational age for an abortion.
Common consensus (including even many who view themselves as "pro-Life") is while no abortions would be ideal, that early abortions are much less evil than late term abortions, and late term abortions grow closer and closer to the legal and moral concept of murder, as development progresses. Not, as some here have tried to assert, that birth is the only point associated with legal personhood. California, for example has a law which counts a fetus as a life in the event of a murder of a pregnant woman. A guy was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of his wife and "unborn child." Such laws dont violate choice rights, (and indeed can be considered "woman's rights") but they *do assert a type of case where a fetus does in fact have personhood. This is not an issue of mere sophistry.
Because there are degrees, the whole issue must be represented in degrees --which is in contradiction to both claims that a fetus "isnt" a person, and likewise that a fetus "is" one. Your 'definition' of "human" as "chromosomes" has little if any bearing on legal, social, and moral "human rights" considerations --nor I suspect would it pass mustard with a biologist. Certainly its a debated issue, but consensus points to a compromise--not an avoidance of any position. The general terms should reflect that, and not either absolutes. Maybe we can agree on that.
Rage on. SV Sorry for the length.
____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs