Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (11775)	4/18/2001 11:34:18 AM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

Words are powerful emotionally, but they aren't always literally true simply because they are uttered. But the meaning of language depends on usage. Here, there is no scientific basis for deciding when a string of human genes becomes a legal person entitied to legal protections. It's purely a human decision. We as a people can decide that a person includes or excludes various forms of human genetic material. We can--and sometimes must--decide which of the following is a person: an 8 month fetus, a 1 day fetus, a body born ninety years ago which is brain dead but is breathing on machines, a finger severed from its body, a body with its finger severed, a brain damaged body which is incapable of caring for itself, one of a pair of Siamese twins which share a heart who can survive if not severed from its twin but cannot survive if severed, jew in 1940s Germany, a slave in 1850s America, and on and on. It is humans, and only humans, who decide which forms of human genetic material are people and which are not. If we as a society decide that day old fetuses are people, then they are. If we as a society decide that babies who have been born aren't people until they reach their first birthday, they aren't. What we decide is controlled, in part, by what we call things. That's why some name calling can be so damaging; it can deny the very personhood of a person. And some name calling can be affirming, like acknowledging that the fetus growing inside a woman is now, not is just waiting to be, a baby. As I have said before, I really am not sure where the right place to draw the line is. But since I don't know, I prefer to err on the side of inclusion, so I am sure I am not approving the killing of persons, rather than on the side of exclusion, where I my be approving the killing of persons. Personally, I believe that in 200 years it's likely -- not certain, but likely -- that society will look back on this era and wonder how on earth this society could have killed its unborn babies with the same disbelief we have when we look back on the 1850s and wonder how on earth a society which wrote that all men are created equal could have held slaves and counted them as worth only 3/5 of white persons.