3 ms·
You say: A fetus is not a person. And so I asked Google "Is a fetus a person?" The top result[0], from what appears to be a pro-choice activist site, is
by notdonspaulding 11y ago
You say:
A fetus is not a person.
And so I asked Google "Is a fetus a person?"
The top result[0], from what appears to be a pro-choice activist site, is an article purporting to take on the argument that a fetus is a person. After reading the article, do you think it represents a mindset which is willing to reconsider its views in light of empirical evidence or any scientific study?
[0]: http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusp...
- dragonwriter 11y agoPersonhood is not (except in the sense of "what entities currently have the legal status of 'person'?") a fact question, and therefore "empirical evidence or scientific study" can't even in principal say much about it.
- Falling3 11y agoOf course it can. Personhood is a philosophical concept in addition to a legal one. Empirically verifiable criteria can be and are set for what constitutes a person.
- notdonspaulding 11y agoSo if science (the study of empirical evidence) is abdicating its responsibility to define who does and doesn't count as a person, to which branch of human thought should we submit the question? Philosophy? Religion? Psychology? What do each of them say in regards to the distinct nature of a person? HN makes for a pretty science-and-empirical-evidence-friendly crowd. I'm pretty sure each discipline (and probably more) has some idea what constitutes a person. My original question was meant to suss out where different people derived their definition of personhood from, and see if those conclusions had been arrived at by following facts or some other rational line of thought.