CDZ A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins.

[320 Years of History]

You know, it says in the Bible that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" or "alive" until God breathed the breath of life into them.

I think the same thing would apply for someone being born, because if a child is stillborn, they don't issue a death certificate for the stillborn fetus.

I look at it like a set of plans for the house. A set of blueprints isn't a "house", it's just a plan to build one. Kinda like an egg and a sperm aren't "people", but rather just blueprints for people. Follow the blueprints and you have a house. Let the egg and the sperm get together, and you've got a blueprint for a person, but it's still not a person.

Then...............while the house is being built, it's still not really a "house" until the plumbing and wiring are complete (in the fetus it would be the nervous system and the circulatory system), and the interior has been finished (the child has fully developed and is ready to be born).

But the baby isn't a "person" until they draw their first breath.

My daughter was born (induced delivery) very early. Over six weeks early to be specific. She was not breathing when she was delivered and it was a long few minutes before we were able to coax her to draw her first breath.

I reject your claim that she was not a person before that first breath. She was my daughter, a human being and a person - long before that first breath.

Also, If your claim is that a person is not a person until they draw their first breath. . . what then is the basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws? Not even viability is required for a murder charge under those laws.

Such laws are nothing more than nonsense.

Law is not always consistent nor do they always make sense. Laws that charge for 2 deaths in the case of

Personhood begins when a live human emerges from a human mother's womb. Prior to that point, the developing lifeform in the womb is nothing more than something that has the potential to be a person.

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person [is] "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Blue from your prior post:
I have nothing to reconcile because human being and person are, in my mind, synonymous. One becomes a human being upon emerging from the womb. One becomes a person upon emerging from the womb.

You see for all the things I am, the one thing I am not is irrational to the point that I will espouse a principle that I cannot abide in all cases where that principle might be applicable. Were I to accept that personhood begins at some point prior to birth, I'd then need to also consider whether corporations too can exist when they are in their formative state because that will have opened to door to that line of argument around the question of what personhood is.

You see, I don't allow the moral dimension to enter into what I consider a person. I establish a very clear and easily identified point in time at which personhood begins for tangible things, or things that can be made tangible, and that point is objectively comparable for all things that are deemed to be born.

• Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.
• Corporations are born when their documents of incorporation are filed. Period. Prior to that, there is no corporation.

Red and Blue from your prior post:
I don't have a need for more than simple logic for I am unwilling to succumb to the fallacies of division and composition. Having some of the characteristics of a human being does not of a human being make of a fetus. Moreover, logically speaking, it doesn't matter what potential to become a person that a fetus has.

One of the defining traits of being a human being is emergence and existence outside the womb. If you want a 20 week or five week old fetus to assume personhood, then as far as I'm concerned, you'll need to remove it from the womb at that point in its existence. At that point, I will call it a person and consider it as deserving all the rights and privileges appertaining to people.



How many people do one see when one sees a pregnant woman? I see one person, the pregnant woman. When the fetus leaves the womb, at whatever point in time that occurs, I see two people.

We have a term, birth, that refers to the point at which one's existence as a person begins. What date is on everyone's birth certificate? The date on which they were conceived? The date on which the zygote lodged in the uterine wall? The date in the course of their fetal existence that they were X weeks into it? The date upon which they emerged from the womb?

If one is born into family of a monarchy and the queen is pregnant when the king dies, who assumes the throne? It's not the fetus that does so. Why not? Because it's not yet a person; it is a future person. Being a person and a future person are not the same things.

First off, corporations are not people and for one to claim rationality there is no reason to bring that up in this conversation. CU did not make corporations people or even deem it so - it deemed that people did not lose the rights of free speech when they came together and formed a corporation.

Also, as already mentioned, the 'bookkeeping' that governments do does not really have any rational place in this debate as well. The date that the government records is meaningless outside of bureaucratic needs.

As far as a 'proto person' and a person I am interested on why birth itself is the delineating factor here. Looking at this from a rational standpoint, there is quite literally no difference in the 'person' in question one second before birth and one after other than location. That is the sole difference. I find that, IMHO, a very irrational basis for the idea of person hood. It is simply convenience, not rational.

I personally ascribe to the Neurological view myself - the mind is the one defining thing that makes humans distinct from other life on the planet. The change here is one of functionality of the brain rather than that of location and I find that a much more rational idea to base person hood on than location in my opinion. Of course, this debate really is an exploration into the legality of abortion otherwise there is little to no reason to bother with defining the exact point that 'person hood' begins. In that context, I think it is important to recognize that there is a balancing act here in the rights of those that are developing and those that are carrying the child. Even Roe recognized that there is an interest in protecting the rights of the unborn. Partial birth abortions are illegal in most places because of that recognition as they should be (medical reasons not withstanding).

I agree corporations are not people, but they get treated in law as though they are. My views of when a living organism becomes a person don't issue from those of when a corporate person begins. Rather, I note that my conception/principle of when personhood begins -- it begins upon birth -- works for both situations. As I've said before, a good principle is one that works in general as well as well it's applied to specific situations. That my principle on the matter of the commencement of personhood works across spectrums suggests to me that it's a better principle than one that works except when it doesn't.

As far as the idea of corporate personhood itself goes, I'd be perfectly fine with denying corporations the rights of personhood and removing that from the discussion as a result. But doing so will not alter what I think about what marks the start of human personhood.

 

[nicolondon]

I'd just like to thank the posters for a brilliant debate, certainly got me thinking about this. I know this is quite a controversial topic in the USA. I think the problem is the definition and I think its quite subjective. I think it can mean different things to different people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz's examples fall flat. Slaves were recognized as humans, fetuses are not.

Human beings in the fetal stage of their life are too recognized as human beings. They are recognized as such by our fetal Homicide laws and even by our United States Patent laws which forbid patients on human beings.

Not as entities with person hood as you define it. That is your fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

there's understanding matters of science and then there's understanding matters of the law...




"the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons"

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Parents Against Personhood -

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

There is no recognition of person hood by the courts or laws as you define person hood.

 

[Valerie]

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

thanks for admitting your agenda.


no, SCOTUS has repeatedly reaffirmed the legal rationale for first trimester privacy which your ilk refuses to acknowledge.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Chuz probably is very upset that the conservative SCOTUS disagrees with him.

 

[320 Years of History]

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

thanks for admitting your agenda.


no, SCOTUS has repeatedly reaffirmed the legal rationale for first trimester privacy which your ilk refuses to acknowledge.

Well there precisely is the problem. Right to livers have an agenda that has little to do with establishing what personhood is or when it begins and everything to do with sticking their noses in what someone else thinks or does.

I don't care what moral terms they use to obfuscate the arrogance that drives them to be in yours, my and everyone else's business, the fact is that is they are so damned arrogant as to actively attempt to be "all up in" others' affairs. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm just not havin' it.

 

[JoeMoma]

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

thanks for admitting your agenda.


no, SCOTUS has repeatedly reaffirmed the legal rationale for first trimester privacy which your ilk refuses to acknowledge.

Well there precisely is the problem. Right to livers have an agenda that has little to do with establishing what personhood is or when it begins and everything to do with sticking their noses in what someone else thinks or does.

I don't care what moral terms they use to obfuscate the arrogance that drives them to be in yours, my and everyone else's business, the fact is that is they are so damned arrogant as to actively attempt to be "all up in" others' affairs. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm just not havin' it.

Say your next door neighbors have just given birth to an infant. After a week, they grow tired of the responsibility of taking care of the infant and simply allow him to starve to death. Is it anyone else's business how they run their family? Do you have a right to impose your sense of morality upon them?

You may say this is not the same, the baby is a person after birth! Are you arrogant to apply your definition of personhood to your neighbors next door?

 

[320 Years of History]

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

thanks for admitting your agenda.


no, SCOTUS has repeatedly reaffirmed the legal rationale for first trimester privacy which your ilk refuses to acknowledge.

Well there precisely is the problem. Right to livers have an agenda that has little to do with establishing what personhood is or when it begins and everything to do with sticking their noses in what someone else thinks or does.

I don't care what moral terms they use to obfuscate the arrogance that drives them to be in yours, my and everyone else's business, the fact is that is they are so damned arrogant as to actively attempt to be "all up in" others' affairs. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm just not havin' it.

Say your next door neighbors have just given birth to an infant. After a week, they grow tired of the responsibility of taking care of the infant and simply allow him to starve to death. Is it anyone else's business how they run their family? Do you have a right to impose your sense of morality upon them?

You may say this is not the same, the baby is a person after birth! Are you arrogant to apply your definition of personhood to your neighbors next door?

Red:
I would say exactly that.

Blue:
In the scenario you described above, I suspect the answer is "no." I suspect that because I think my neighbor will agree with me that their infant was a person, at least until they allowed it to die. If they disagree with me think their infant is/was not a person, then my answer would have to be "yes," it's arrogant of me to unilaterally apply my definition of personhood to their situation.

I must say that it seems pretty far fetched that my neighbor would not consider a born infant to be something other than a person/human being. And yes, I realize that even my approach to the matter at hand runs into some difficulty, at least on the moral front, when a mother experiences an unavoidable premature birth. Even there, however, I would leave the decision about whether to pursue the wonders of modern medicine to enable (or try to) the prematurely born child's life to persist or not. Clearly there are plenty of women who have no access to those wonders and whose prematurely born children perish.

 

[320 Years of History]

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

thanks for admitting your agenda.


no, SCOTUS has repeatedly reaffirmed the legal rationale for first trimester privacy which your ilk refuses to acknowledge.

Well there precisely is the problem. Right to livers have an agenda that has little to do with establishing what personhood is or when it begins and everything to do with sticking their noses in what someone else thinks or does.

I don't care what moral terms they use to obfuscate the arrogance that drives them to be in yours, my and everyone else's business, the fact is that is they are so damned arrogant as to actively attempt to be "all up in" others' affairs. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm just not havin' it.

Say your next door neighbors have just given birth to an infant. After a week, they grow tired of the responsibility of taking care of the infant and simply allow him to starve to death. Is it anyone else's business how they run their family? Do you have a right to impose your sense of morality upon them?

You may say this is not the same, the baby is a person after birth! Are you arrogant to apply your definition of personhood to your neighbors next door?

The law applies the definition, knucklehead, not you.

What a silly maladroit analogy.

He can propose the scenario because, knucklehead, I've already asserted that I think that a dictum given by human laws isn't necessarily "right" just because it's law. Yes, the law will stipulate consequences for violating the law, but the discussion here is about what is or should be right, not what has been codified in law.

You see, I figure out what I think is the right way to approach something, and then I act to make it so in law. I don't start with what the law says and conclude that it is thus what is right.

 

[JoeMoma]

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

thanks for admitting your agenda.


no, SCOTUS has repeatedly reaffirmed the legal rationale for first trimester privacy which your ilk refuses to acknowledge.

Well there precisely is the problem. Right to livers have an agenda that has little to do with establishing what personhood is or when it begins and everything to do with sticking their noses in what someone else thinks or does.

I don't care what moral terms they use to obfuscate the arrogance that drives them to be in yours, my and everyone else's business, the fact is that is they are so damned arrogant as to actively attempt to be "all up in" others' affairs. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm just not havin' it.

Say your next door neighbors have just given birth to an infant. After a week, they grow tired of the responsibility of taking care of the infant and simply allow him to starve to death. Is it anyone else's business how they run their family? Do you have a right to impose your sense of morality upon them?

You may say this is not the same, the baby is a person after birth! Are you arrogant to apply your definition of personhood to your neighbors next door?

The law applies the definition, knucklehead, not you.

What a silly maladroit analogy.

No, it's not silly. Just as the law quickly changed for many states with a simple supreme court ruling, it could change again. Also, just because a law states something does not necessary make it right. People that currently disagree with the way the law currently treats "personhood" and abortion rights have every right to try to effect change to the laws. Likewise, those on the other side have every right to try to maintain or even expand the limit of which a life may be terminated without legal protection of the government.

That being said, I was addressing the concept of "minding one's own business". Minding one's own business can be the justification of many types of atrocities. If someone decides to murder your entire family, is it any business of mine? How dare anyone be so arrogant!

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Message:

We're supposed to be here in the CDZ to discuss issues without making it about "you or them"..
Try it -- discuss the topic and leave names and pronouns out of the responses..

You are "representatives" of a position. Take a position and defend it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The position is simple: Chuz has suggested that slaves are some how the equivalent as fetuses. His only "proof" is his opinion and the derivative analogy of slave = fetus. SCOTUS gives us no example to make any such conclusion.

 

[Chuz Life]

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

thanks for admitting your agenda.


no, SCOTUS has repeatedly reaffirmed the legal rationale for first trimester privacy which your ilk refuses to acknowledge.

My agenda has never been hidden and it has never been a secret that our fetal homicide laws would be eventually used to challenge and to overturn Roe.

I have even provided links to existing challenges to those laws as those convicted are trying to appeal their convictions on the basis that our fetal homicide laws conflict with Roe.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

For those who voted "exclusive" on the poll. . . I would like to know how you reconcile your vote that personhood should be EXclusive with the ideals expressed in our Constitution that are INclusice.

The ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence apply to people. Prior to being given a name, humans are not people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fetuses are not people.

SCOTUS as posted above does not opine that fetal homicide laws challenge Roe.

 

[FA_Q2]

You know, it says in the Bible that Adam and Eve didn't become "human" or "alive" until God breathed the breath of life into them.

I think the same thing would apply for someone being born, because if a child is stillborn, they don't issue a death certificate for the stillborn fetus.

I look at it like a set of plans for the house. A set of blueprints isn't a "house", it's just a plan to build one. Kinda like an egg and a sperm aren't "people", but rather just blueprints for people. Follow the blueprints and you have a house. Let the egg and the sperm get together, and you've got a blueprint for a person, but it's still not a person.

Then...............while the house is being built, it's still not really a "house" until the plumbing and wiring are complete (in the fetus it would be the nervous system and the circulatory system), and the interior has been finished (the child has fully developed and is ready to be born).

But the baby isn't a "person" until they draw their first breath.

My daughter was born (induced delivery) very early. Over six weeks early to be specific. She was not breathing when she was delivered and it was a long few minutes before we were able to coax her to draw her first breath.

I reject your claim that she was not a person before that first breath. She was my daughter, a human being and a person - long before that first breath.

Also, If your claim is that a person is not a person until they draw their first breath. . . what then is the basis for a MURDER charge under our fetal homicide laws? Not even viability is required for a murder charge under those laws.

Such laws are nothing more than nonsense.

Law is not always consistent nor do they always make sense. Laws that charge for 2 deaths in the case of

How do you reconcile that belief with the legal definitions which simply say a natural person [is] "a human being?"

Are you claiming that a prenatal child is not even a human being - until they emerge from the womb?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have any science / biological references to support your claim/ denial?

Anything?

Blue from your prior post:
I have nothing to reconcile because human being and person are, in my mind, synonymous. One becomes a human being upon emerging from the womb. One becomes a person upon emerging from the womb.

You see for all the things I am, the one thing I am not is irrational to the point that I will espouse a principle that I cannot abide in all cases where that principle might be applicable. Were I to accept that personhood begins at some point prior to birth, I'd then need to also consider whether corporations too can exist when they are in their formative state because that will have opened to door to that line of argument around the question of what personhood is.

You see, I don't allow the moral dimension to enter into what I consider a person. I establish a very clear and easily identified point in time at which personhood begins for tangible things, or things that can be made tangible, and that point is objectively comparable for all things that are deemed to be born.

• Humans are born when they emerge from the womb. Period. Prior to that point in time, there is no human.
• Corporations are born when their documents of incorporation are filed. Period. Prior to that, there is no corporation.

Red and Blue from your prior post:
I don't have a need for more than simple logic for I am unwilling to succumb to the fallacies of division and composition. Having some of the characteristics of a human being does not of a human being make of a fetus. Moreover, logically speaking, it doesn't matter what potential to become a person that a fetus has.

One of the defining traits of being a human being is emergence and existence outside the womb. If you want a 20 week or five week old fetus to assume personhood, then as far as I'm concerned, you'll need to remove it from the womb at that point in its existence. At that point, I will call it a person and consider it as deserving all the rights and privileges appertaining to people.



How many people do one see when one sees a pregnant woman? I see one person, the pregnant woman. When the fetus leaves the womb, at whatever point in time that occurs, I see two people.

We have a term, birth, that refers to the point at which one's existence as a person begins. What date is on everyone's birth certificate? The date on which they were conceived? The date on which the zygote lodged in the uterine wall? The date in the course of their fetal existence that they were X weeks into it? The date upon which they emerged from the womb?

If one is born into family of a monarchy and the queen is pregnant when the king dies, who assumes the throne? It's not the fetus that does so. Why not? Because it's not yet a person; it is a future person. Being a person and a future person are not the same things.

First off, corporations are not people and for one to claim rationality there is no reason to bring that up in this conversation. CU did not make corporations people or even deem it so - it deemed that people did not lose the rights of free speech when they came together and formed a corporation.

Also, as already mentioned, the 'bookkeeping' that governments do does not really have any rational place in this debate as well. The date that the government records is meaningless outside of bureaucratic needs.

As far as a 'proto person' and a person I am interested on why birth itself is the delineating factor here. Looking at this from a rational standpoint, there is quite literally no difference in the 'person' in question one second before birth and one after other than location. That is the sole difference. I find that, IMHO, a very irrational basis for the idea of person hood. It is simply convenience, not rational.

I personally ascribe to the Neurological view myself - the mind is the one defining thing that makes humans distinct from other life on the planet. The change here is one of functionality of the brain rather than that of location and I find that a much more rational idea to base person hood on than location in my opinion. Of course, this debate really is an exploration into the legality of abortion otherwise there is little to no reason to bother with defining the exact point that 'person hood' begins. In that context, I think it is important to recognize that there is a balancing act here in the rights of those that are developing and those that are carrying the child. Even Roe recognized that there is an interest in protecting the rights of the unborn. Partial birth abortions are illegal in most places because of that recognition as they should be (medical reasons not withstanding).

I agree corporations are not people, but they get treated in law as though they are. My views of when a living organism becomes a person don't issue from those of when a corporate person begins. Rather, I note that my conception/principle of when personhood begins -- it begins upon birth -- works for both situations. As I've said before, a good principle is one that works in general as well as well it's applied to specific situations. That my principle on the matter of the commencement of personhood works across spectrums suggests to me that it's a better principle than one that works except when it doesn't.

As far as the idea of corporate personhood itself goes, I'd be perfectly fine with denying corporations the rights of personhood and removing that from the discussion as a result. But doing so will not alter what I think about what marks the start of human personhood.

It does not work for both situations - sorry but they simply are not the same concept at all and the comparison is nonsensical. There is no corporate 'gestation period' and drawing up paperwork is not similar to the concept of procreation. This also only addresses but a portion of what I wrote (and the unimportant part at that).

Drawing the line for a persons existence makes no sense based solely on location.

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

thanks for admitting your agenda.


no, SCOTUS has repeatedly reaffirmed the legal rationale for first trimester privacy which your ilk refuses to acknowledge.

Well there precisely is the problem. Right to livers have an agenda that has little to do with establishing what personhood is or when it begins and everything to do with sticking their noses in what someone else thinks or does.

I don't care what moral terms they use to obfuscate the arrogance that drives them to be in yours, my and everyone else's business, the fact is that is they are so damned arrogant as to actively attempt to be "all up in" others' affairs. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm just not havin' it.

Say your next door neighbors have just given birth to an infant. After a week, they grow tired of the responsibility of taking care of the infant and simply allow him to starve to death. Is it anyone else's business how they run their family? Do you have a right to impose your sense of morality upon them?

You may say this is not the same, the baby is a person after birth! Are you arrogant to apply your definition of personhood to your neighbors next door?

Red:
I would say exactly that.

Blue:
In the scenario you described above, I suspect the answer is "no." I suspect that because I think my neighbor will agree with me that their infant was a person, at least until they allowed it to die. If they disagree with me think their infant is/was not a person, then my answer would have to be "yes," it's arrogant of me to unilaterally apply my definition of personhood to their situation.

I must say that it seems pretty far fetched that my neighbor would not consider a born infant to be something other than a person/human being. And yes, I realize that even my approach to the matter at hand runs into some difficulty, at least on the moral front, when a mother experiences an unavoidable premature birth. Even there, however, I would leave the decision about whether to pursue the wonders of modern medicine to enable (or try to) the prematurely born child's life to persist or not. Clearly there are plenty of women who have no access to those wonders and whose prematurely born children perish.

So, do you think that it would be just fine for the neighbor to starve their children to death after the first week if they defined that child as a 'proto person?'

 

[FA_Q2]

there's understanding matters of science and then there's understanding matters of the law...




"the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons"

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Parents Against Personhood -

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

Where has anyone said 'only sometimes.' That is a false statement. A person is always a person. What is being said is that at some point that person comes into being. The point that occurs is what is in question and it is that question that is not answered in the constitution.

 

[Chuz Life]

For those who voted "exclusive" on the poll. . . I would like to know how you reconcile your vote that personhood should be EXclusive with the ideals expressed in our Constitution that are INclusice.

The ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence apply to people. Prior to being given a name, humans are not people.

LOL!
Like magic....

 

[Chuz Life]

there's understanding matters of science and then there's understanding matters of the law...




"the Court argued that prenatal life was not within the definition of "persons" as used and protected in the U.S. Constitution and that America's criminal and civil laws only sometimes regard fetuses as persons"

The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade (1973) | PBS

Welcome to Parents Against Personhood! We are an advocacy organization dedicated to fighting "personhood" ballot initiatives and legislation, and raising voter awareness about how personhood poses dangerous potential consequences to infertility treatment, birth control, and pregnancy care.

Parents Against Personhood -

That part about "only sometimes regarded as as person?"

That's all we need for the legal basis to fight for the rest of the rights and protections which are [for now ] being denied.

Where has anyone said 'only sometimes.' That is a false statement. A person is always a person. What is being said is that at some point that person comes into being. The point that occurs is what is in question and it is that question that is not answered in the constitution.

I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.