[WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood

[Phroziac]

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 at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 


-- 
signature