|
|
Post by Mr. Daniel on Apr 29, 2013 8:27:40 GMT -5
Is it morally defensible to extend legal personhood to corporations but not to fetuses as we do here in America?
|
|
|
|
Post by karinad on May 6, 2013 21:51:52 GMT -5
First off, there is no way to argue that a fetus IS a person. A person is conscious, thinks and feels (and perhaps chooses and acts), and has the illusion of being a self. Infants, let alone fetuses, probably don't even have the sense of being an individual, yet. A mass of multiplying cells, at very most, represents a potentiality. To quote A.C. Grayling (from his new book, The God Argument), "That does not make the potentiality of no interest; we accord rights even to the not-yet-concieved when we say that future generations have a claim on us to protect the environment in their interests. It follows all the more strongly that the conceived have claims too." But a fetus IS NOT a person. That being said, I don't think corporations are, either. Corporations are made up of groups of people, and are hence much more powerful (aka have more money) than the average person, and should be treated accordingly.
|
|
WillL
New Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by WillL on May 7, 2013 20:51:55 GMT -5
One qucik comment karina: when a baby is aborted, it moves around as if it is in pain....showing characterastics of a person. It struggles to avoid the pain that will cause it its life.
|
|
|
|
Post by felicityfitz on May 24, 2013 7:44:26 GMT -5
Will, I'm sorry but worms also squirm when you poke them and yet nobody really cares about them. I see how a physical response from a fetus might evoke sympathy but how does that actually prove that the fetus has anything more than potential? And also, will, nobody said that the fetus isn't alive, karina only said that it wasn't a person. Bacteria is also alive.
|
|
