[trisham]

So who are the so-called human non-persons? All embryos and fetuses, to be sure. But many bioethicists also categorize newborn infants as human non-persons (although some bioethicists refer to healthy newborns as “potential persons”). So too are those with profound cognitive impairments such as Terri Schiavo and President Ronald Reagan during the latter stages of his Alzheimer’s disease.

***************

In a related article posted on Free Republic today, Neal Boortz states in regards to President Bush's attempt to save Terri Shiavo's life "I define a religious extremist as anyone who wants to use the power of law -- and that means deadly force -- to force their religious principals on someone else."

I believe Boortz is wrong. Removing religion from our lives results in this kind of redefinition of human beings, in my opinion.

[muawiyah]

Boortz is also stepping into a quagmire that may well engulf him. Once you accept the "personhood" sort of definition, you can quickly move to the "quality of personhood" standard, and that will always include the question of whether or not you adhere to the standard orthodoxy of the moment.

[B Knotts]

"I define a religious extremist as anyone who wants to use the power of law -- and that means deadly force -- to force their religious principals on someone else."

That sounds like a description of George Felos.

[RobbyS]

Our law is founded on relgious principles. Boortz is really just uring the courts to re-interpretate the law is other terms, such as those of the bioethicists.
These views would then be forced on us. In our world, laws are always based on large views, if not religious then ideological.