[WikiEN-l] NPOV: Fetus personhood - fish for all the thanks

Fri Jul 29 21:57:52 UTC 2005

steve v wrote:

>Ryan Delaney <ryan.delaney at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Let me put it this way: If you aren't trying to
>>imply that the fetus is 
>>a person, then what is the point of saying "A fetus
>>is human"? Everyone 
>>knows it is a human fetus. I seriously doubt that
>>you could be taking
>>the time in an ethics article to explain that
>>chimpanzees do not grow in 
>>the wombs of human females. If you consider it so
>>trivial to say "A 
>>fetus is human", then you shouldn't have to say it
>>at all. The only 
>>_possible_ meaningful reading of that sentence,
>>therefore, is POV.
>>    
>>
>
>So, "why say it, if its going to be controversial?"
>Even though not saying "human" would be an endorsement
>of one view, which de-"human"izes the fetus? The
>point, again, is that even ardent pro-Choicers can
>agree that a fetus = human, then why say "that would
>be POV", "implies personhood" and hence "should be
>avoided."
>
>There is some linguistic overlap between the uses of
>"human" and "personhood" as social and legal concepts,
>and therefore simply avoiding them doesnt really
>clarify anything. 
>
>Sincere regards,
>SV
>
>  
>
Avoiding them doesn't clarify anything, but neither does using them. In 
fact, using them only obsfucates the whole issue. If you say "a fetus is 
a human" in the article, people will read that according to their own 
pre-determined POV. Pro-lifers will read it as "A fetus is a human 
being" and pro-choicers will read it as "a fetus is human tissue". The 
sentence adds nothing to the article by itself.

The philosopher in me is rising up in a rage on this point. 
Realistically, the only people for whom "person" and "human" have 
linguistic overlap are people who don't know how this sort of thing is 
talked about. Maybe it would be best to clearly define the difference 
between "human" (organic tissue with 42 chromosomes) and "person" (a 
rational, autonomous consciousness) and specify that some people think 
we are morally obligated to anything that is "human" while others think 
we are only obligated to "persons". Once those terms are clearly 
defined, "a fetus is human" would be uncontroversial and also meaningful.

- Ryan