Auralia wrote:Imperial Polk County wrote:"I vehemently disagree. To incapacitate someone or something is to render them unfit or incapable or to prevent something or someone from functioning properly. Just because an embryo isn't fit yet or able to function yet doesn't mean it's been incapacitated. I mean, is an infant considered incapacitated because it can't yet lift a five-pound bag of flour?"
Technically, yes. The word "incapacitated" does not necessarily imply that one has been disabled by some external force, merely that one is disabled. One dictionary simply defines the term as "unable to act, respond, or the like (often used euphemistically when one is busy or otherwise occupied)".
The authoring delegation should have used clearer language if they wanted to exclude members of a sapient species at early levels of development.
Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly
If one were to look just a bit further in that very same dictionary, the verb of 'incapacitate' (of which the adjective gets its root) is defined as: "to deprive of ability, qualification, or strength; make incapable or unfit; disable". Therefor, one must have an ability, qualification or such taken away or made incapable.
However, if we're going to go that deeply, perhaps it would make sense to also counter by saying that embryos are not 'members' of a species? Or should we, perhaps, not open that particular Pandora's Box?