[Hank Kerchief]

In your post 50, you imply that certain political distinctions which apply to adult humans should not apply to the "newly born."

Have you changed your former belief that humans become persons at birth?

You are trying to make something where there is nothing. Do you think new-borns should be allowed to vote? Here is a more practical one (because it is actually happening). Do you think children should be allowed to "sue" their parents for spanking them, or that the state should be allowed to prosecute parents who use corporeal punishment as abusers? Certainly if an adult did to another adult what parents do to their children it would be considered a crime. Unborn, newly born, and all children must be treated differently than adults.

Hank

[OWK]

Unborn, newly born, and all children must be treated differently than adults.

Of course.

While still human (and therefore rights-bearing entities) they do not have the faculties necessary to comprehend the administration of their own rights.

Their rights must therefore be advocated for them by a steward (traditionally a parent or guardian) until such time (if ever) as they develop the capacity to advocate those rights themselves.

[hocndoc]

I was asking about your comment in #50,""Within the context of biology, a human embryo is a stage in a human life. Within the context of political definitions, neither a human embryo or even a young child ought to be considered a fully developed human, and laws that apply to adult human beings ought not apply, at least in the same way, to the unborn or recently born.""

Were you defining privileges rather than rights?

The basic principle of non-maleficence applies to manipulations on human lives, at whatever stage of development.