"Can we stick to the question about when a being is entitled to be labeled as a human being"
Well, that is a good question. I think I will take a moment to clarify what has preceded this question from you.
Greg or e made it clear over innumerable posts that he considered the egg (I mean the fertilized egg) a person. As a person it thus had personal rights. I gathered he was referring to inalienable rights--THOSE rights considered axiomatic in western culture and government for ALL people.
He also made it clear that development, size, age, etc. all had nothing to do with his determination. Given those beliefs, it made perfectly good sense to focus on the egg stage of development (I mean the fertilized egg stage of development because the unfertilized egg was not a part of his controversy). However, for some strange reason, Greg or e kept objecting to the language of both egg and fertilized egg. He said it was dehumanizing and other such adjectives. It was rather puzzling from one whom contended that eggs (I mean fertilized eggs) were human.
For most of us, development from egg (I mean fertilized egg) to morula, to blastocyst, to fetus, to developing nervous system in the fetus...DOES affect the cold rationality of our polemic. Therefore, it would seem most appropriate (given Greg or e's beliefs) to use the terminology of "fertilized egg" when discussing the issues of personhood and human rights from his perspective. Oddly, he seems to take exception to this and gets into some bizarre criticism of it.
He seems to believe that an egg (I mean a fertilized egg) is a person because it has a particular DNA. Other than that, he does not say WHY having this DNA should imply any rights for this egg (I mean fertilized egg). The answer appears to be: "BECAUSE...
Now, you are presenting a different perspective. I Think a person can be labelled or considered as human when it is born. I do suppose that there is nothing inherently wrong or mistaken about using other timelines or developments to justify the label--however, I make a distinction between person and "LEGAL" person. An egg (I mean a fertilized egg) DOES have human DNA. So, also, does an individualized person whose brain has been lost through accident or disease.
There are people who have no legal rights--inalienable or otherwise Although, I suppose that those human dna people whom are only a frozen head in a cryogenics tank DO have some form of legal rights. Rights arise because of self interest. They are an expression of what self aware people want in their own interest. In order to be seen and heard and treated fairly in society they have the ability to speak and to act in their own self interest. An egg (I mean a fertilized egg) has no such capacity. Strictly speaking, it has no self...and it has no interest.
This is not to say it has no value. It may have value to another. But if the mother does not value HER property...then she has every right to detach it from her body.
Isn't it odd (and oh so ironic) that in many times and cultures it was considered an honor for a child or a teenager to have his/her life given to some religious God! Now, it is notable that religion plays a huge role in the fight to save Mindless eggs (I mean mindless fertilized eggs) from being detached and sent to God's place!
If "God" knows all and has planned all, then He is the author of all those trillions of spontaneous abortions that occur each day. Heaven forbid that a teenager after a rape or after a good time should be forbidden to take a morning after pill? Heaven forbid, indeed. |
