Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parable
I mean what is the difference between when a human fetus is considered a parasite (as some have said) and when it is considered a person such that it is endowed with legal rights?
|
Grow men and women are parasites on other people (remember Kato Kaelin?). That doesn't stop them from being human. It just describes their current method of deriving something while harming the host, be it food or fame. In actuality, I would suggest that the relationship between mother an unborn child is commensalistic (sp?), meaning that both host and guest eat together without harming one another, and aegistic, meaning that the guest is protected by the host without the host being harmed. They live in a relationship where one isn't really harmed. There are processes of change in both organisms, of course, but calling them harmful is tricky.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parable
On what basis is this distinction made?
|
Because one can be a parasite and human, a distinction cannot be certain.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parable
For example, if location with respect to the birth canal is the determining factor, i.e. being "born", then consider the so called "partial birth abortion" in which most of the fetus is actually outside the mother's body, and the brains are sucked out while the head is still inside. From this, one might infer that it is the location of the head with respect to the birth canal that is the determining factor, not the rest of the body.
Is this how we determine personhood or is there something less dependent on circumstances involved?
|
? What?