Re: L&I Re: Is a Fetus a Person? + Liquid air for premamture births

[Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.]

"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:


Hi Doc - far from being sorry, we're thrilled that we asked if we get
responses like yours, an entire education. And you've written it out so
cleary, so thanks. Thanks! Now, would a law that said there are rights
and protections for a conceived child be Kantian or neo-Kantian?
(Perhaps neither, of course).

That might be compatible with the California Civil Code which in
pertpart includes the unborn in listing basic rights of persons. By
contrast, in the Ward criminal case, however, the existing but as yet
unborn offspring are not yet 'minors' (dated from birth) and so not
'persons'. Would that follow a particular school of thought? (The Ward
case mentions some other cases, which I haven't seen yet, and cites
Family law to argue the as-yet-unborn are not persons, I believe. Sue?).
Thanks again Doc, eloquent and relevant (as usual, even in your short
quips).  :) LDMF.
-----------------------------DocCec wrote:-----------------------------
> 
> In a message dated 98-03-27 14:44:21 EST, you write:
> 
> << Hi Steve -  you have added a new time of accrual of 'personhood'!
>  Offline we had discussed the standards that date 'personhood' from
>  conception (the East), from the first independent breath (one and only
>  one of the American Views), but viability in terms of danger in abortion
>  is a third; and that can be a difficult call, can't it? Turning to both
>  you and Sue here for your knowledge, and *yoohoo Doc & Jackie and
>  group*. :) LDMF. >>
> 
> "When is a person?" is the real question, and no one can answer it.  There are
> a plethora of opinions, but opinions are not answers.  There's conception,
> implantation (shortly after conception but separable from it), brain
> development, heartbeat, "quickening" or movement, and viability outside the
> womb (a stage which changes as technology advances).  I've probably omitted a
> few, but that's the general idea.
> 
> No one knows.  IMO no one will never know.  We don't even agree on a good
> definition of "person" -- I'm a bit of a Kantian so I tend to go with his idea
> that a person can form a resolution re right and wrong that he/she would agree
> should govern every person.  That not only eliminates fetuses, it does a
> number of kids as well.  In the Kantian school, BTW, an unborn is either a
> "future person" or a "potential person" -- the first gets born, the second
> doesn't, and you don't know until one or the other happens.  There are also
> categories called "person-like" which encompasses those mentally unable to
> reach the plateau of forming the imperative, but who in all other attributes
> are similar to persons, "former person" which would include the alzheimer's
> patient and/or one in a persistent vegetative state (except that we've seen a
> few of the latter recover, so...)
> 
> The reason it's important is that we (Kantian ethicists) assign rights based
> on personhood.  E.g., a person has a robust (you can't infringe on it) right
> not to be killed for sport.  Non-persons do not have that right, although
> there may be other very valid reasons for not doing that to them -- society's
> interest, parental valuation of the not-yet-person, things like that.  In
> Kantian terms, those rights are not "robust" but are called rights-sub-two
> whereas robust rights are rights-sub-one.
> 
> Now, aren't you sorry you asked?  All this, and masses more, is from the
> course in Philosophical Roots of Bioethics taught by Tris Englehardt for the
> Kennedy Institute at Georgetown.
> 
> Doc
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues


Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues