I don't think so. It's a human, it moves, it must be alive. I think it would be POV to say that it is entitled to universal human rights and stuff though. There's still people that don't think females, blacks, whatever are entitled to universal human rights!
On 7/27/05, steve v vertigosteve@yahoo.com wrote:
Now for a *real* NPOV tickler:
User:Meelar and I are having a friendly dispute over how NPOV should be interpreted for the issue of "Fetus personhood" (no article yet), beginning on the talk pages of Talk:Pro-life and continuing at Talk:Reproductive rights. (Sorry no links -- FFox users can just selectlinks> rightclick> search - I love how google finds WP:WP links easy these days too :))
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal "human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
I say its not, while Meelar feels that because pro-choice advocates have disputed the human status of a fetus, its therefore POV to say a human fetus is human. This may be a simplistic reference of his NPOV interpretation, (more on the talk pages) but my general point is that just because PC says "its not so" doesnt mean "its not so" just as with the FES claim of the earth being "flat." AIUI PC has largely avoided "human rights" for fetuses, by simply claiming they arent human, or bypassing the question through lesser "social rights" issues such as privacy. There is no "human right" to kill another human being.
SV
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l