- Thread starter
- #41
Huh?
What do you mean by "they define terms?"
In other words, one person may refuse to call a zygote a human being, another demands that they do, and the argument stalls there, even though what term is used isn't really the issue.
I can't disagree more.
When the legal definition for a "natural person" is simply "a human being?" It is THE (thee?) issue.
If the first person is using the term human being to denote a human which has developed far enough to have a full complement of functional organs, or if they use the term to denote a person who has reached a certain degree of brain activity, or a heartbeat, or whatever criteria they may be using, arguing that will not lead to any discussion about when a human life has what value (unless, perhaps, the way they define human being expresses when human life has a certain value).
Which leads me to ask...
Does the Constitution only secure rights for "persons" of value? Or does it (supposedly) secure EQUAL rights and protections for ALL persons, equally?
Is the wording from the Constitution "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" inclusive, or is it exclusive?
People use different words and terms in different ways, and all too often a different or unusual definition can tie up a discussion.
I can be patient when I need to be.
Last edited: