Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
I was merely pointing out the problem with debating personhood. It's a philosophical concept and, as a result, has no real meaning. If you asked a hundred people to define what constitutes a person you'd probably get twenty or thirty answers. Since there is no consensus as to what defines a person, it seems rather silly trying to base whether or not a ZEF is granted the same protections as everyone else is based on it.
|
As you pointed out yourself, the law defines personhood, and in the past has done so in a manner which excluded individuals we now consider to be persons. Clearly this has meaning, at least to the extent that it affects how laws are enforced. If how we define personhood had no meaning, then it wouldn't matter whether we decide to ascribe personhood to a fetus, and by extention, whether or not abortion is right or wrong (inasmuch as it affects the fetus). It's true that people won't all agree on what constitutes a person, but
someone's opinion is going to end up defining legality. I see no reason why we shouldn't strive for a logically and ethically robust definition of personhood, even if we can't quite reach it.