The standard is obvious…human life. Frankly, it makes me a little insane to even have to state the obvious. Following your non-standard to its logical conclusion leads to a chamber of horrors. We’ve seen how this works. First one group are not legally protected persons. Then another group. Then another. I don’t understand why anyone would want that.Correct. One can’t point to it as some scienific standard. Like I said, it’s a cultural, philosophical, legal, religious, and social concept. It can change. We can all make up our own definitions, and can’t be shown to be wrong because there is no standard.
OK. That’s one opinion. If it’s obvious, how do you demonstrate it is true? Is “person” simply an exact synonym for human life? Is there any difference in meaning between the two words? Can we use them interchangably anywhere?The standard is obvious…human life. Frankly, it makes me a little insane to even have to state the obvious. Following your non-standard to its logical conclusion leads to a chamber of horrors. We’ve seen how this works. First one group are not legally protected persons. Then another group. Then another. I don’t understand why anyone would want that.
Person is simply an exact synonym for human being. And in other contexts, it is more than that as you’ve pointed out. A nice thing about something being obvious is it doesn’t need to be demonstrated. In the Declaration of Independence, the founders stated “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,…” They didn’t waste alot of hot air proving self-evident truths. They simply stated them. Every generation has folks who deny these truths. But there is even less excuse to do so today given the 20th century tyrannies. Unless they actually want a repeat.OK. That’s one opinion. If it’s obvious, how do you demonstrate it is true? Is “person” simply an exact synonym for human life? Is there any difference in meaning between the two words? Can we use them interchangably anywhere?
Does a person have an immortal soul?
(Is Planned Parenthood of Texas a human life? It’s a legal person.)
OK. So, can we dispense with the word “person?” Nobody denies a fertilized egg is human species. That’s it. Simple. No need for further complications. No need for anyone to call for science to prove a human fetus is a person.Person is simply an exact synonym for human being. And in other contexts, it is more than that as you’ve pointed out. A nice thing about something being obvious is it doesn’t need to be demonstrated. In the Declaration of Independence, the founders stated “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,…” They didn’t waste alot of hot air proving self-evident truths. They simply stated them. Every generation has folks who deny these truths. But there is even less excuse to do so today given the 20th century tyrannies. Unless they actually want a repeat.
I then, in the second sentence, went on to talk about the topic of this thread. You are choosing to ignore the on topic part in order to pursue an off topic line of discussion which is related to the sentence which I used to set up my on topic statement. I am beginning to believe that you come here only to annoy people.Here’s what you said.
"Which is why we need to conclusively prove, through science, that a human fetus is a person. Rhetoric does not help this, but an argument can be made that it hinders the process. "
Those are your words, not mine.
You want conclusive scientific proof, and you said it here. So, do you know what are the measurable and observable characteristics of a person?
What you are doing is engaging in bogus rhetoric that does nothing but hurt your cause. If you want to succeed, tone it down.
The first sentence was about scientific proof a human fetus was a person. The second sentence was about rhetoric.I then, in the second sentence, went on to talk about the topic of this thread. You are choosing to ignore the on topic part in order to pursue an off topic line of discussion which is related to the sentence which I used to set up my on topic statement. I am beginning to believe that you come here only to annoy people.
They ruled that they weren’t persons entitled to 14th Amendment equal protection. Since you seem to agree that a person is a human being (unless it refers to a multi-human legal entity like Toyota) and also that a fetus is a human being, then a fetus must be a person. So your summary of the ruling also applies.OK. So, can we dispense with the word “person?” Nobody denies a fertilized egg is human species. That’s it. Simple. No need for further complications. No need for anyone to call for science to prove a human fetus is a person.
Why clutter up a discussion by injecting words that add nothing?
(So, did the Supreme Court really rule a fetus was not of the human species?)
The Supreme Court ruled the fetus was not defined as a legal person, and that’s why the 14th did not apply. So, do you think the Supreme Court therefore ruled the fetus was not of the human species?They ruled that they weren’t persons entitled to 14th Amendment equal protection. Since you seem to agree that a person is a human being (unless it refers to a multi-human legal entity like Toyota) and also that a fetus is a human being, then a fetus must be a person. So your summary of the ruling also applies.
My mistake. Although I think this is obvious. What else does person refer to? You have mentioned other legal uses of the term person to refer to multi-human entities like Toyota. And that doesn’t undermine the common understanding of the term in the slightest.I have taken no position on the question of whether a person is exactly synonymous with an instance of the human species. If I have given that impression, it is due to sloppy writing on my part.
Does a person have an immortal soul?My mistake. Although I think this is obvious. What else does person refer to? You have mentioned other legal uses of the term person to refer to multi-human entities like Toyota. And that doesn’t undermine the common understanding of the term in the slightest.
Is that relevant to whether or not a person is a human being?Does a person have an immortal soul?
Does a person have an immortal soul?Is that relevant to whether or not a person is a human being?