>I think that the 'birth' as criteria for Constitutional 'personhood'
>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
A human being has a soul. "Quickening", when the soul enters
the body, happens at about 3 months after conception. As I
recall, this was considered within Roe v. Wade.
When someone dies, the soul leaves the body. What remains
is a body, not a living, human being.
Mr. Parker's previously criteria are good gauges of whether
the soul resides within the body. However, Terry Schiavo
could be an exception to these guidelines. Most of her
brain was gone, unable to do much at all, but was still
alive until they pulled the plug.
Considering a person "property" whether a child or a slave,
is merely a label. How you treat that person under your
care is the crucial matter. However, restricting someone's
liberty, who is fully able to govern themselves and take
responsibility for their own actions, is an anathema to
our libertarian instincts.
Start Here to Find It Fast! -> http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/
$8.77 Domain Names -> http://domains.us-webmasters.com/
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
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.
