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.
Where is the legal definition of a natural person a human being? I tried looking it up, and got a few slightly different definitions. For example, I've seen it defined as a human being, a human being naturally born, a breathing human being, etc. The purpose of the term seems to be simply to separate living persons from artificial or legal persons.
They all say "human beings," correct? That's the one thing they all have in common.
So, let me ask what your thoughts are on whether the definition for "natural persons" should be inclusive of all human beings, or do you think it would okay (and Constitutional) to exclude certain human beings that we (Society) might want to exclude? .
The constitution may not differentiate between the value of persons (now), but as far as abortion is concerned, the USSC ruled in Roe v Wade that a fetus is not a person in the context of the 14th amendment.
Were they right?
Is the Supreme Court infallible?
What about the 35 or more fetal HOMICIDE laws that have been passed, Since the Roe v Wade decision?
That would be the legal argument. My hypothetical questions were not legal ones, however. They were personal, the questions I think are important when discussing when life begins, what constitutes a person (or human being), in any individual's opinion. Discussing what the legal ramifications or definitions are is a bit of a different discussion.
Personal discussions are fine. However, we are not each entitled to our own set of definitions when it comes to making policy or when dealing with laws.
The definition of natural persons would depend on the context. Where is it used, legally speaking? Whether it should include a zygote, as this thread starts with, depends on how it is being used.
In a general sense, I think the court was correct that a fetus is not a person, not yet covered by the rights of the constitution. At what point those rights begin is a difficult question, and I think that at birth may be too far along in development, but fertilization does not make a legal person IMO.
Some of the fetal homicide laws seem contradictory to me on their face. I do recall reading an explanation of how they can make sense even within the context of Roe, but I have forgotten it.
