Quote:
Originally Posted by tjinaz
When you separate individual morality from the equation, that is the correct assumption. A newborn does not have a fully developed sense of self or personality. Technically they are "potential" people. Same with fetuses, they are just outside the body. If you go by that standard the implications spread into all sorts of other grey areas. If you define when a baby actually becomes a person along these lines then the contrapositive must also be considered. When would an existing person cease to legally be a person? What happens when due to injury, or illness a person loses their sense of self and personality could they legally lose their rights and be killed?
I found this whole concept to be abhorrent but logical. The legality in defining when a person is considered legally a person cannot be based in morality as it is subjective and its definitions vary significantly from person to person and change over time.
This used to be the realm of religion but as that standard is on the decline this line of questioning will come up more and more.
That is the other part of this issue. I think technically some pets/animals (dogs, pigs, cats) have the equivalent mental capacity of 2-3 year old humans so do we afford those animals the protections of the human or the human the lack of protections we give to animals? Do we value human life over that of other species? An extension of the discussion of the dog that killed the baby.
|
The vast majority of laws are based heavily in morality. The law is not shaped solely by strictly definable boundaries, nor should it be.