Now for a *real* NPOV tickler:
User:Meelar and I are having a friendly dispute over
how NPOV should be interpreted for the issue of "Fetus
personhood" (no article yet), beginning on the talk
pages of Talk:Pro-life and continuing at
Talk:Reproductive rights. (Sorry no links -- FFox
users can just selectlinks> rightclick> search - I
love how google finds WP:WP links easy these days too
:))
Question: Is it POV to say that a fetus is a "human
life," and by terminology, thus entitled to universal
"human rights" and societal "personhood" status?
I say its not, while Meelar feels that because
pro-choice advocates have disputed the human status of
a fetus, its therefore POV to say a human fetus is
human. This may be a simplistic reference of his NPOV
interpretation, (more on the talk pages) but my
general point is that just because PC says "its not
so" doesnt mean "its not so" just as with the FES
claim of the earth being "flat." AIUI PC has largely
avoided "human rights" for fetuses, by simply claiming
they arent human, or bypassing the question through
lesser "social rights" issues such as privacy. There
is no "human right" to kill another human being.
SV
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs