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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (4764)	1/5/2017 10:42:49 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356253

By that definition an early fetus is a person. By others less so. By some a newborn wouldn't be a person. I can examine different definitions but I wouldn't consider birth itself highly significant to the question. You deliberately ignored the definition of a child, childhood being the period between birth and adulthood. I realize that there may be other definitions, but what I posted was the first return from Google and has long, long been the accepted definition. I chose to label the unborn as humans. I chose to label late term fetuses as persons. The reasoning for the later would seem to be obvious unless your also going to argue that a newborn is not a person. I agree on the human. I welcome the news that you don't consider a zygote a person. Yes, a newborn is absolutely a person. WRT what's obvious, sorry, but it isn't. I would accord a viable fetus certain considerations. I would accord any fetus, any embryo even, certain considerations. I think that they have moral standing wrt abortion. But not the full legal rights of personhood. It's a question of legal standing. Until it has been welcomed into the world, it's not a person. And I don't understand on what basis you insist that it is.