was adopted as a matter of convenience; a clear delineation
commensurate with that time's technology.
These days, human babies can be prematurely born by months. And some
are naturally born 'brainless' (sans brain). Upon birth a human is
still VERY dependent on others for basic life support. What effect
might this lack of material 'agency' have on transendendly
moral 'personhood' (not just what is legal now)
Here are *my* 'tentative' COMBINED criteria for
who or what gets to be regarded as a person:
sentience- ability to consider essential
information about one's environment
(surroundings, situation and so on)
agency- power to act in one's environment
conscious volition- free will to intervene between
stimulus and response by making meaningful choices;
without which one can not be 'responsible' for
one's actions that interface with other persons
Imo, 'personhood' is about individual sovereigns
(whose 'domains' are their own bodies and
justly held possessions) being free moral agents;
which still leaves room for acts of compassion :)
Domains http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419
Morals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/37899
-Terry Liberty Parker
PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48351
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quoth Terry:
>
> > In some societies infanticide is NOT considered to be murder.
>
> That's precisely what I was referring to in another post (since you
> posted this one) with respect to the "fetus fairy" argument.
>
> In the absence of an explanation as to how and why a "person"
> is/becomes a "person," there's no particular reason to believe that
> that happens at the moment the doctor yanks the youngsun out and
> announces the birth. It could happen earlier. It could happen later.
>
> L. Neil Smith has argued -- I'm not sure how serious versus
> hypothetical he intended it, but the argument was not unreasonable -
-
> that children are just property, albeit very _valued_ property to
> which we have an instinctive biological attachment, until they say
> "see ya, ma, see ya, pa" and walk off over the horizon in charge of
> their own lives.
>
> When I characterize that argument as "not unreasonable," I mean
that I
> find it more reasonable than the position that a fetus passing the
> cervix on the way out is not a "person," but that it magically
somehow
> is a "person" once the feet clear the labia.
>
> Tom Knapp
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
