Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tecoyah
Thats one of the finer points the debate brings out...Lets Call it " the Terry Shivo argument". It seems to me there are two differing pieces involved here, One focused on the Fetus, and another on the ability to think. Both aspects are best dealt with by allowing a guardian to make decisions. But must of course be tempered by societal laws placed to forbid going to extremes. Once an agreed upon baseline for thought has been established, I would hope we could clarify the vast majority of cases and allow for uniform implementation of a standard for care. There will however, always be exceptions to any law created by man...it should be expected.
|
Of course. I think that the same rules applied to poor Terry should be applied to the fetus. If it's in pain and it's going to die, then it can be aborted. I don't think anyone would argue that point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tecoyah
We must also consider the actual wiring required in the first place, as I would think a mentally challenged individual has at least managed to form the connections to the brain, and has some measurable activity within the organ. Damage to the brain may however, make these connections pointless in the context of thought.
|
Yeah. I'm not a medical expert of any kind, so I can't compare developmental points of a fetus' brain to that of any level of individual who was born with a mental disability.
I don't see intellect as a qualifier for the right to live. And I do believe that humans have a right to live.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parable
Willtravel,
|
Willravel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parable
You are using the terms "fetus" and "person" interchangeably, and this is precisely the point of under consideration. "Fetus" is a medical term, "person" is a legal term. A fetus is not a person until it is legally recognized as such.
|
I thought you were using person in a philosophical or moral sense. My mistake.
Quote:
|
n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person. Counties and cities can be treated as a person in the same manner as a corporation. However, corporations, counties and cities cannot have the emotions of humans such as malice, and therefore are not liable for punitive damages unless there is a statute authorizing the award of punitive damages.
|
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1516&bold=||||
The American legal term is either homo sapiens (derived from definition 1) or a corporation. As a fetus is homo sapiens, it is a person, legally.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parable
This brings up the other term that comes up, "child". Legally, a "child" has already been born. Some like to use the term "unborn child", but in the legal context of the word "child", "unborn child" is an oxymoron. That's like saying "un-mature adult".
|
Actually, I made another mistake. It's adult and
minor, so far as the law goes. A minor is quite literally anyone under the age of 18. A fetus is under the age of 18. That is not incorrect. "Fetus" does not have a legal meaning.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parable
As for DNA, from your comment I infer that you would agree that DNA is not the basis on which to determine "personhood", is that correct?
|
Apples and oranges.
BTW, if you're interested in using the quote feature, one only needs to end with [/QUOTE] and begin with [QUOTE]