Quote:
Originally Posted by SWTXBelle
Don't you think "falls apart" is a bit harsh?
|
If we're talking religious beliefs, quite possibly. If we're talking in term of legal definitions, no.
Quote:
|
A potential human - is still human, is it not?
|
Again, from a legal standpoint I would have to say no; otherwise the word "potential" is surplusage It is a
potential human, meaning it is capable of becoming human, but is not yet human.
Quote:
|
I will agree that once you say it is not a human from conception it gets rather murky. If a fetus can indeed be something other than human, what exactly is it?
|
As I understand it, the Talmud would say it is an appendage of the mother and a being of "doubtful viability."
Quote:
|
I guess you can draw a fine line between potential human and human - but it's a really fine one. To me, it is more rational ( I hesitate to say logical) to say it is human all along than to decide on some arbitrary point at which it is human - but I am sincere when I say I'm happy to hear a more rational discussion of the point from those who disagree.
|
I think that what others have been saying is not that they disagree necessarily, but that given the fact that various religious or ethical perspectives can disagree on this (one traditional Hindu opinion is that a fetus becomes a person at 3 months), the law must rely on neutral/legal definitions of human. The question, then, is how is such a neutral principle to be decided on without appeal to religious or ethical authority. Many here have essentially expressed the opinion that viability provides that neutral principle. Why do you think it's more "rational" to say earlier? Simply saying "the fetus is a human" doesn't work -- the traditional Hindu view cited above would disagree, as, I think, would Exodus 21:22-23 and the Talmud. (Not that I mean to suggest that the Talmud supports abortion except in limited circumstances. It does not, but the position of traditional Judaism is not, as I understand it, based on the proposition that the fetus is a person prior to birth.)
ETA: Yes, I know I cited religious rather than neutral authority. I did so on purpose, because the reality is it is very hard to set one aside and focus on the other.
Quote:
|
Rather than putting all this energy into piling on me, (not that it hasn't been fun),
|
I thought we were discussing legal understandings, which is what you wanted, not piling on.
Quote:
|
how about the issue of why you think the Gallup poll results came out the way they did?
|
I have. Twice.