Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: Life and Biotechnology

Human non-Persons?

7 Comments

Great post

I agree 100%. You did a great job articulating exactly what is so despicable and dangerous about the categorization of certain humans as "non-persons."

P.S.

Check out the featured post on the Your Opinion page.

Great argument

Wanted to chime in about how well thought out and articulate this post is. Nice job of expressing the slippery slope that the labeling of the fetus would put society on. Good work.

Nice work

Well articulated points made. Such a slippery slope to walk on. It surprises me the historic myopia of many people. Eugenics by any other name is just the same.

Spot on

It's interesting to note, as you point out, that those who sneer at the concept of humans having a right to life from the moment of conception can do no better than to create arbitrary definitions of "human person" in order to deny the applicability of the concept.

Are you acquianted with a 1971 article by Judith Jarvis Thompson in defense of abortion? It first appeared, I think, in the journal, Philosophy and Public Affairs. The reason I ask, is that Thompson's argument in that article was that even if it is granted that the fetus is human, it has no right to life. I think when the arbitrariness of their "human non-persons" argument these people will argue that even if the fetus is a person, it has no right to life. Right now, Peter Singer is one of the very few who will admit this.

Human non-persons

Great post!

It's interesting to note, as you point out, that those who sneer at the concept of humans having a right to life from the moment of conception can do no better than to create arbitrary definitions of "human person" in order to deny the applicability of the concept.

Are you acquianted with a 1971 article by Judith Jarvis Thompson in defense of abortion? It first appeared, I think, in the journal, Philosophy and Public Affairs. The reason I ask, is that Thompson's argument in that article was that even if it is granted that the fetus is human, it has no right to life. I think when the arbitrariness of their "human non-persons" argument these people will argue that even if the fetus is a person, it has no right to life. Right now, Peter Singer is one of the very few who will admit this.

Sorry about the double comment

Browser difficulties.