[WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood - fish for all the thanks

[steve v]

--- Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at 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