Ethicists debate issues about beginning of life

You present no counter-arguments, simply a word parsing challenge of each term used, when no doubt you understand those meanings as well as I do. As for distinguishing soul and spirit, I'll leave that to you, since neither is the issue of this particular debate. I responded to a simple question. For those who assume a soul (spirit?), none of this is at issue, since there is no question of when a "human" for theological purposes is created. For the rest, there are such questions, not the least of which is when is a "person" created for purposes of the Constitution. They are not similar in nature.

And to believe that the Supreme Court can only make decisions based on absolutes is also (to use your term) feckless.

We should just leave it at that. Your moral absolutism based on what you have been taught is far from what the Church believed for a very long time. My philosophy recognizes that a person relying on faith can by definition ignore all the nuances of science. A person who does not rely on faith must face those nuances, and may in fact not be able to reconcile every one. Both are good people directed by their own moral compasses.

The Science of embryology defines the conception event as the point of new individual. You, on the other hand, are trying to parse and dodge at every turn in order to support and defend arbitrary application of science, to arrive at your desired goal ... which goal is becoming more apparent with each posting. You may claim I have 'no counter argument', but it is just more mischarcterization on your part because you will not be specific when seeking to gray this issue out to your satisfaction.

The Science of embryology defines the conception event as the point of new individual.

So perhaps you thought I was seeing an elm tree or a monkey? The science of embryology however, cannot make the critical determinations of law. Those who deal in moral absolutes have an easy time of it, not having to use any judgment. The rest must rely on judgment and analysis to make such moral calls. Regardless of how much one wants to rely on science to make purely theological decisions, it won't fly. Now if only the creationists paid some attention to science....

You, on the other hand, are trying to parse and dodge at every turn in order to support and defend arbitrary application of science, to arrive at your desired goal ... which goal is becoming more apparent with each posting.

Yes, I'm one of those kinky thinkers...

If any determination was arbitrary, it is that the soul enters the body at the time of conception. It is simple. It is absolute. But the Church's history belies that determination. Those who look to the Constitution generally think through the issue. At the end of the day, for them, there will never be an absolute, perfect definition, so as a result, judges must use...well...judgment. Horrors! Meanwhile, you can look down your nose at those of us who actually try and think through such complex issues, and know that you are so much more knowledgeable than the likes of Aquinas and Augustine. My hat's off to you!

You may claim I have 'no counter argument', but it is just more mischarcterization on your part because you will not be specific when seeking to gray this issue out to your satisfaction.

Well, up to this point your whole argument has been to reveal my secret plan, whatever that may be, and to claim that because I cannot define with sufficient precision an issue that defies an absolutest analysis, that I am somehow less qualified than you to make such calls. Elitism?

For those who assume a soul (spirit?), none of this is at issue, since there is no question of when a "human" for theological purposes is created. For the rest, there are such questions, not the least of which is when is a "person" created for purposes of the Constitution. They are not similar in nature.

For starters, before we even get to 'nuances', how about using the definition of the word at the time the Constitution was written?

PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.]

1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

A person is a thinking intelligent being.

2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them.

A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things.

3. A human being, considered with respect to the living body or corporeal existence only. The form of her person is elegant.

You'll find her person difficult to gain.

The rebels maintained the fight for a small time, and for their persons showed no want of courage.

4. A human being, indefinitely; one; a man. Let a person's attainments be never so great, he should remember he is frail and imperfect.

5. A human being represented in dialogue, fiction, or on the state; character. A player appears in the person of king Lear.

These tables, Cicero pronounced under the person of Crassus, were of more use and authority than all the books of the philosophers.

6. Character of office.

How different is the same man from himself, as he sustains the person of a magistrate and that of a friend.

7. In grammar, the nominative to a verb; the agent that performs or the patient that suffers any thing affirmed by a verb; as, I write; he is smitten; she is beloved; the rain descends in torrents. I, thou or you, he, she or it, are called the first, second and third persons. Hence we apply the word person to the termination or modified form of the verb used in connection with the persons; as the first or the third person of the verb; the verb is in the second person.

8. In law, an artificial person, is a corporation or body politic.
In person, by one's self; with bodily presence; not be representative.

The king in person visits all around.
Webster's 1828 dictionary.

We know what a human being is. We know it as surely as we know what a turnip is. We do not have to have exhaustive knowledge to know truly, but it is at minimum a matter of fact that is ascertainable via public, scientific knowledge. What is curious to me is how easily supposedly enlightened, modern, sophisticated, scientifically educated people who want unrestrained power to kill very young human beings will either openly appeal to the scientific ignorance of past ages, or unwarranted and self-refuting philosophical skepticism as ethical justification, as if such sophistry provides grounds for anything.

The question of law boils down to whether all human beings have rights or only some human beings have rights, and whether humans have rights simply because they are human beings or because some other human beings say so.

Cordially,

We know what a human being is. We know it as surely as we know what a turnip is. We do not have to have exhaustive knowledge to know truly, but it is at minimum a matter of fact that is ascertainable via public, scientific knowledge.

While I appreciate the 1828 Webster dictionary definitions, none that I saw answered the legal questions. For example, the first definition reflects that a person has a body and soul. What if someone does not believe that. Because Webster said it, ergo it must be true? Your illustration reflects an example in that a person is a thinking , intelligent being. We all know that a fetus will hopefully become that one day, but is not so in its early stages of development. I also appreciate how someone can be a moral absolutist. There is even a ping list here on FR. I can disagree with the logic used while still respecting the opponent.

What is curious to me is how easily supposedly enlightened, modern, sophisticated, scientifically educated people who want unrestrained power to kill very young human beings will either openly appeal to the scientific ignorance of past ages, or unwarranted and self-refuting philosophical skepticism as ethical justification, as if such sophistry provides grounds for anything.

Well said! But of course, you seem to gloss over the history you just referred to. There is absolutely nothing modern science knows today that would help make a determination as to whether a fetus has a soul or not. That is the issue. You speak of sophistry, but the greatest sophism I have run into is an attempt to use science to prove the existence of a soul...at any stage of a fetal development. The modern Church uses this in an effort to wipe out more than a millennium of contrary belief. There was no scientific breakthrough in the 1860s that led the Pope to his famous decree on abortion. But this is the sole argument for wiping out all of this history. That I would consider as pure sophistry.

But yet, in the end, it is pure faith, not science that rules this issue for those who believe. Why attempt to use science in such a disingenuous manner?

The question of law boils down to whether all human beings have rights or only some human beings have rights, and whether humans have rights simply because they are human beings or because some other human beings say so.

This is a great question. Throughout the history of this Nation, the rights of many have been thwarted or otherwise denied for a variety of reasons. And perhaps this issue is no different. But many of us believe it is, and as such must be addressed. The seven justices were not evil people, as most here believe. But their famous decision only postponed an argument that has yet to take place. You may believe a person is one for purposes of the law at conception, but many do not. If not, then when? That is the issue, and the points I made in an earlier post do apply, Webster notwithstanding. And in the end, the absolutists may be right. Because it cannot be ascertained with certainty the stage that the fetus becomes sufficiently developed to be classified as a person, the Court may rule that 5th Amendment rights apply to a fetus from conception on. I don't believe that will be the case, but it may.

You spouted: There is absolutely nothing modern science knows today that would help make a determination as to whether a fetus has a soul or not. That is the issue. If that is indeed the issue for you (this appears more and more, with each brassy posting by you, to be all about your stroking your ego since you continue to write of 'soul' but eshew any definition for us and thus allowing yourself the maximum parsing room): the organized cell division and tasking begun at conception and carrying a distinct DNA identity as different from both the Mother and the Father is indication enough that a new individual life is behaving just as that human life should at that age. And that gestational process continues even after the birthday of the individual into the air world.

That you prefer to set such truth aside in order to continue this obfuscation of truth into the mutated gray you prefer to support your perspective is quite telling of you and your need to create an alternate reality that allows you to feel good about the dehumanization process you prefer, for whatever reason you prefer it.

Your petty condescension is laughable, not having the dissonance effect you intended. But that was a good try, sport.

It is inevitable with the fundamentalists here. They paint themselves into a corner, cannot meet on an intellectually level playing field, and so resort to the only thing they really understand...the personal attack. You do it well. By the way, who is us you keep referring to. The rest on here who disagreed with me did so by specifying where they believed I was wrong...and attempted to set me straight.

Apparently your faith is insufficient for you. You must attack anyone not in agreement with you. This has nothing to do with me. But if it makes you feel better, by all means take your best shot.

As for your little "science" lesson in the middle of your tirade, I'm quite sure that Augustine knew that a life was growing from the moment of conception. As I have said several times, "that is not the point". Perhaps you can tell me exactly why the Church turned away from the concept of late ensoulment when it did? BTW, it had nothing to do with the fact that a "human" is devoloping, since that was common knowledge for a very long time.

As for my definition of a soul and its relevance, perhaps it's your turn to contribute something. Since different religions through the ages have had differing views of the "soul", why is my interpretation of any relevance?

As for my petty condescension, it is intended only for hypocrisy, not for faith. It is reserved for those who cling to "science" in an effort to "prove" a soul, while at the same time decrying "science" in an effort to "prove" creation. But obviously, since that's not you....

Take care, my friend.

Bwahahahaha ... nice try, sport. Do you imagine that your repeated ignoring of what you don't want to have in evidence in the discussion is fooling the readers? Bwahahaha

Bwahahahaha ... nice try, sport. Do you imagine that your repeated ignoring of what you don't want to have in evidence in the discussion is fooling the readers? Bwahahaha

Bwahahaha? Your debating skills continue to reflect...well...an interesting flair. I'm reminded of a saying by, I believe Aristotle, who said "We are what we repeatedly do". You may want to go back and look at your several efforts to interject yourself into an otherwise reasonable debate and take those words to heart.

Take care.

Thank you for writing.

While I appreciate the 1828 Webster dictionary definitions, none that I saw answered the legal questions. For example, the first definition reflects that a person has a body and soul. What if someone does not believe that. Because Webster said it, ergo it must be true?

I used 1828 Webster because it gives the meaning of the word 'person' at the time the Constitution was written. The definition demonstrates that there was no phony dichotomy at that time between a human being and a person. It doesn't matter whether someone presently believes or doesn't believe the body/soul distinction; we know what the generally accepted meaning of the word was around the time of the Constitution. So reading back an arbitrary modern distinction between 'human being' and 'person' on the Constitution to make it mean something that was never intended is historically anachronistic and unjustified.

We all know that a fetus will hopefully become that one day, but is not so in its early stages of development

Ontologically speaking, capabilities are limited to the kind of thing to which they belong. Anything that has the potential to do human things, whether now or at any time in the future, is already a human being otherwise it could never have that capability. A turnip can only do turnip things, and does not have and will never have the ability to do uniquely human things. A turnip is the offspring of turnip parentage. A human being is the offspring of human parentage. If a being has the potential of rationality then that being is already a human being because no other kind of being has that nature. We know what a human being is as surely as we know what a turnip is.

There is absolutely nothing modern science knows today that would help make a determination as to whether a fetus has a soul or not. That is the issue. You speak of sophistry, but the greatest sophism I have run into is an attempt to use science to prove the existence of a soul...at any stage of a fetal development.

I am not trying to use science to prove the existence of the soul. I am simply pointing out that we know from science and from metaphysics what a human being is and how and when a human being begins. The soul question in this context is a canard. If you want to talk theology I'll be glad to do so as far as I am able, but it is a different matter.

The meaning of personhood is about as close to self-evident as one can get. A moments reflection should demonstrate it to you: If I ask you the meaning of the proposition, "I was conceived", you would understand exactly what is meant by the sentence, and you would not be able to coherently argue that it does not make sense, or that it is untrue of yourself.

The reason it makes sense to you is that your life has been a continuum from the moment you began to exist. If I ask you when you began to exist, the correct answer is, at the beginning, i.e., at your conception. Therfore, it would be incoherent to assert that you were not a person when you began to exist and only 'became a person' sometime later in your existence. For the most unfortunate example of what I'm saying, see Harry Blackmun's incoherent use of the word, "mother" in his infamous Roe opinion, not to mention his backwoods biology and his self-professed ignorance.

Because it cannot be ascertained with certainty the stage that the fetus becomes sufficiently developed to be classified as a person

As outlined above, the assumption that there is a distinction between a fetus and a person is a category error. If you positively assert that there is some such a distinction, the burden of proof is on you to justify that distinction. We know what the word meant in 1828.

Cordially,

Reasonable? Haha! You reject modern science then claim there has to be a scientific basis (at Aristotle's level of science) for proving the soul else there is no sense injecting the notion of soul, yet you refuse to define what you are calling 'soul'. Yeah, you're a real bright bulb. But again, nice try, sport.

As to the definition of soul that I rely upon, well it is the behavior mechanism that proves life is present. There are three basic manifestational variables of thaqt mechanism, with higher life forms exhibiting more and lesser organisms exhibiting less, but all exhibiting the most fundamental, that of the will to live. The other two variables are emotion and mind, the reasoning manifestation. Even my cats exhibit all three; an amoeba exhibits at least one and perhaps all three, albeit primitive manifestation. With humans we have another aspect that is linked to the behavior mechanism --the spirit-- but is not soul, though soul is the expression gateway for spirit. When I gave you a rudimentary picture of the new life exhibiting the first aspect of soul --the will to live and expression of that will in cell division and tasking-- I mistakenly believed you would 'get it', the science I mean. You did, but you did your usual and tried to ignore that morsel so as to prevent it entering into the discussion the way you have condescended to dabble in it and define the debate. You're a joke at FR ... we aren't as backward here as you must be use to at other forums.

Why not try and apply the same sound discussion techniques in the following post of yours to this thread? ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1748501/posts?page=81#81

The definition demonstrates that there was no phony dichotomy at that time between a human being and a person. It doesn't matter whether someone presently believes or doesn't believe the body/soul distinction;

Surely you are not suggesting that the USSC must accept the concept of a soul in determining issues such as abortion? In fact, during the time of Webster's definition, even the Church did not recognize it in a fetus' early stages. Why should the Court?

Ontologically speaking, capabilities are limited to the kind of thing to which they belong. Anything that has the potential to do human things, whether now or at any time in the future, is already a human being otherwise it could never have that capability.

I have never denied that, nor I believe would Augustine have. Yet, the "accepted" definition of a person in 1828 nothwithstanding, it still remains an issue that must be confronted in jurisprudence, ie: when is a human a person. It is a valid question, and one that requires more than a dictionary...or a Bible to answer.

I am not trying to use science to prove the existence of the soul. I am simply pointing out that we know from science and from metaphysics what a human being is and how and when a human being begins. The soul question in this context is a canard. If you want to talk theology I'll be glad to do so as far as I am able, but it is a different matter.

This whole issue has been one with a theological base. The issue came out on this thread as a debate on why the Church ultimately set aside 1200 years of belief with regard to the existence of the soul, and the practice of abortion. But for constitutional considerations, I maintain that the issue of when constitutional rights apply to the unborn is an open one with many. It cannot be resolved simply, and a quick look at the Bill of Rights will reveal that every one of those enumerated rights has limitations. The right to bear arms, the right to free speech, to freedom of the press, to privacy...all have certain limitations. We are discussing whether the 5th Amendment rights are guaranteed to someone not previously considered a person. And in that debate, the issues relating to development cannot be ignored.

"I was conceived", you would understand exactly what is meant by the sentence, and you would not be able to coherently argue that it does not make sense, or that it is untrue of yourself.

That is because I am a sentient being, with a fully developed central nervous system, and capable of feeling pain, etc. An early stage fetus has none of that. That is why it is an issue, whether those things matter in the determination of a person. And you speak of tradition. Well, an obvious question would be, if abortion was ok for early stage fetuses for over a thousand years in the Western world, what changed? The argument that the scientists and doctors of the time did not know about conception is not an argument. They did.

Therfore, it would be incoherent to assert that you were not a person when you began to exist and only 'became a person' sometime later in your existence

You continue to equate the unarguable biological truism of a human being with the highly arguable legal question of "person", as meant by the Constitution. They may ultimately be ruled one and the same, but it is a completely valid distinction and question.

For the most unfortunate example of what I'm saying, see Harry Blackmun's incoherent use of the word, "mother" in his infamous Roe opinion, not to mention his backwoods biology and his self-professed ignorance.

I will at least agree that the basis for the decision being privacy was silly. Past that, I would hope the coming examination of this does address the rights of the unborn person, which must by default also examine the definition of "person".

If you positively assert that there is some such a distinction, the burden of proof is on you to justify that distinction. We know what the word meant in 1828.

Let's further examine your definitions:

1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul.

At that time, the soul was considered to exist only in a formed, animated fetus, somewhere between 16 and 30 weeks.

We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; Does a fetus have a rational nature, or will that rational nature be formed at some time?

the body when dead is not called a person. Yet a corporation, not living, is a person.

It is applied alike to a man, woman or child.

None of which is a fetus, nor I would suggest was Webster thinking of a fetus in that statement.

A person is a thinking intelligent being.He or she will be one day, but certainly not as a fetus.

2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them. Again, the listing of a man, woman, or child. What is important here, is that again, he fails to address the term fetus. And even more importantly, he understood that biologically slaves were persons, but for purposes of the Constitution, they were not. There are legal distinctions that do not necessarily follow biology or the dictionary.

Take care.

Reasonable? Haha! You reject modern science then claim there has to be a scientific basis (at Aristotle's level of science) for proving the soul else there is no sense injecting the notion of soul, yet you refuse to define what you are calling 'soul'.

Had you read anything I actually wrote on this thread, you would know what you just said was ridiculous. I don't at all reject modern science. I merely pointed out that those who believe that a fetus cannot be aborted at any stage because the soul (however you wish to define it) is present at conception, are at odds with what the Church and most of its scientific community believed for well over a thousand years. And I further said that when the Church decreed that no abortion is permissible (in 1869), it had nothing to do with any new science. Those are facts whether you like them or not.

As to the definition of soul that I rely upon, well it is the behavior mechanism that proves life is present.

It's nice to know you at least have a definition, especially if you believe it is determinative with respect to abortion. Others would disagree with you, and no court should consider it.

With humans we have another aspect that is linked to the behavior mechanism --the spirit-- but is not soul, though soul is the expression gateway for spirit.

Again, a nice concept, but since metaphysical issues are by definition provable only by faith, they cannot play into legal arenas, especially in this area.

This is why my definition of either soul or spirit was irrelevant.

When I gave you a rudimentary picture of the new life exhibiting the first aspect of soul --the will to live and expression of that will in cell division and tasking-- I mistakenly believed you would 'get it', the science I mean.

As you pointed out, all living things have a will to live. But that rudimentary beginnings for even humans are just that...rudimentary. There is no reason, rationality, sentience...nothing but growth. To be sure, one day it will, but the issue from a constitutional perspective is when does that growth become a person with all of the rights of the Constitution? You may be certain, but many are not. Nor do I reject science...just metaphysics, as a basis for legal determinations.

You're a joke at FR ... we aren't as backward here as you must be use to at other forums.

Yes, I'm sure you and the FR crowd all gather around the table and chat about how MACVSOG is a joke. As for my other forums, I seriously doubt you would fit in. They insist on rational debate, not inane insults, given simply to make the poster feel like he has contributed something.

By the way, you always know where the abuse button is...I have little doubt.

Why not try and apply the same sound discussion techniques in the following post of yours to this thread? ...

LOL. I'm always amused at the folks who, when insults don't do the trick, look back at a posters earlier threads...to find some dark secret about them that can then be referred to the moderators. Be my guest.

You paranoia is showing, sport. Is the air thin on your private mountaintop?

You paranoia is showing, sport. Is the air thin on your private mountaintop?

Nah, just used to some here who are,well...shall we say...a couple of standard deviations off the bell curve. Take care, sport.

There are several mistakes of fact and logic in your post.

This whole issue has been one with a theological base.

First, I wish I could make it be understood for all time and eternity that I am not arguing on the basis of theology here. I am arguing on the basis of science and metaphysics.

To me, the question of "when is a human a person" is literally nonsensical because it conflates and confuses two different logical categories of being. The essence of a being refers to the question of what kind of thing it is, but the term person refers to the question, 'who is it?' Every human being is a different ‘who’, but humans are all the same ‘what.’ Diamond and MACVSOG68 are different ‘who's’ even though both are the same ‘what’ or essence. So the notion that there is such a thing as a human being who is not a person is logically unintelligible and absurd because persons are a subset of human beings. Personhood is a universal property of human-ness. The question is logically inconsistent with its own terms.

When further down in your post you ask if a fetus has a rational nature, or will that rational nature be formed at some time, you are controverting the same logic you profess to not to have denied; namely, that capabilities are limited to the kind of thing to which they belong, and that anything that has the potential to do human things, whether now or at any time in the future, is already a human being otherwise it could never have that capability.

When did you begin to exist?

How did you come into existence?

At that time, what was your essence?

At that time what was your nature?

At that time what was your substance?

At that time what was your person?

At that time what were some of the accidents (incidental properties) of your person?

The answers to these questions are all knowable in principle. And I am willing to predict that you will not be able to answer them without either destroying the notion that a fetus is not a person, or alternatively, destroying any intelligible concept of your own identity and existence.

A factual issue:

Well, an obvious question would be, if abortion was ok for early stage fetuses for over a thousand years in the Western world, what changed?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but haven't you read that part of the Hippocratic Oath, 4th Century BC?

I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.
Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my art.

You continue to equate the unarguable biological truism of a human being with the highly arguable legal question of "person", as meant by the Constitution.

That's because I'm here speaking of natural persons as opposed to artificial or legal persons; and of natural law, the foundation of the Constitution, as opposed to positivistic law, currently in vogue, which basically says you only have inalienable rights if some other human beings say so. To think that a law authoritatively determines what constitutes a natural person is insane and wicked, in my opinion. Do you think that there is properly such a thing as a human being who does not not have inalienable rights?

Again, the listing of a man, woman, or child. What is important here, is that again, he fails to address the term fetus.

What Webster "fails" to address" is an argument from silence. That Webster divides humanity into three general categories by itself says nothing about what he thought about the humanity of prenatal offspring of human parentage. Perhaps a definition of fetus would be instructive. Notice particularly the etymology of the word:

fe·tus /'fit?s/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fee-tuhs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -tus·es. Embryology.

(used chiefly of viviparous mammals) the young of an animal in the womb or egg, esp. in the later stages of development when the body structures are in the recognizable form of its kind, in humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Also, especially British, foetus.

Compare embryo (def. 2).

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME < L fétus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb, equiv. to fé- (v. base attested in L only in n. derivatives, as fémina woman, fécundus fecund, etc.; cf. Gk thésthai to suck, milk, OHG taan to suck, OIr denid (he) sucks) + -tus suffix of v. action]

Cordially,

First, I wish I could make it be understood for all time and eternity that I am not arguing on the basis of theology here. I am arguing on the basis of science and metaphysics.

The science will go far in the USSC case, the metaphysics will likely not. I was merely pointing out that it was a thread on theological rationale. Let's talk about the assumptions of Augustine. Yes, his decision was based on the timing of ensoulment, but I'm sure you understand that as a scientist he did know that a fetus was a human at all stages, don't you?

To me, the question of "when is a human a person" is literally nonsensical because it conflates and confuses two different logical categories of being.

Everything you said is 100% true. I do not disagree with it. What I do disagree with however, is that the term "person" has had a different meaning for purposes of the Constitution than the meaning you present. You can argue it until you're blue in the face, but as I pointed out earlier, slaves were human, but were not considered persons under the Constitution until the 13th and 14th Amendments. That alone is definitive in terms of how the Court will view this issue if it looks to the original meaning of the term by the framers of the Constitution.

So the notion that there is such a thing as a human being who is not a person is logically unintelligible and absurd because persons are a subset of human beings.

Even using your 1828 dictionary, I demonstrated that certain requirements seemed to be necessary to be a person. While I don't necessarily agree with that completely, it should tell you that the argument that persons are humans doesn't necessarily be default mean that all humans are persons. I have already shown how the legal system and constitutional interpretations have throughout history had varied meanings.

Personhood is a universal property of human-ness. The question is logically inconsistent with its own terms.

When you approach the USSC, you may want to bolster that argument a bit for the reasons I have already given you. And don't believe that either the history we have discussed or the varied meanings are irrelevant to the discussion. They are not.

An illegal alien is a human, and of course, is a person. But is he a person to which the Bill of Rights applies? That question has been going around for a while now. A terrorist is both a human and a person, but the Administration argues that he is not a person with regard to the 4th or 5th Amendments.

When further down in your post you ask if a fetus has a rational nature, or will that rational nature be formed at some time, you are controverting the same logic you profess to not to have denied; namely, that capabilities are limited to the kind of thing to which they belong, and that anything that has the potential to do human things, whether now or at any time in the future, is already a human being otherwise it could never have that capability.

My point was simply that it is not an unfair question as to whether that rational nature, once developed takes on any additional rights by virtue of its having reached a certain developmental plateau, or does it have all of the rights from the moment of conception regardless of development. Your case is based on the fact that conception creates the human, and for all purposes, legal, constitutional, religious and metaphysical, this is now a person. Don't count on others necessarily agreeing with that thesis.

And I am willing to predict that you will not be able to answer them without either destroying the notion that a fetus is not a person, or alternatively, destroying any intelligible concept of your own identity and existence.

Well, to begin with you may use the term "person" all you want, but it doesn't mean a court will accept your term, simply because philosophically you can link personhood with humanhood. When we speak of "man", frequently we are including women in that context. But not always. This issue is very complex and will not be settled in the USSC simply by resorting to philology.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but haven't you read that part of the Hippocratic Oath, 4th Century BC?

Surely you're not taking issue with my statement concerning the acceptance of abortion for over a thousand years, are you? To be sure, it was not accepted everywhere, especially in the Eastern Church, but as I said, was clearly acceptable up to a point in the development of the fetus, until the late 19th Century in the Western world.

That's because I'm here speaking of natural persons as opposed to artificial or legal persons; and of natural law, the foundation of the Constitution, as opposed to positivistic law, currently in vogue, which basically says you only have inalienable rights if some other human beings say so.

That's the hurdle you must get over. Let me ask you why partial birth abortions are so frowned upon, even by judges? Is it because they see something human that they do not necessarily recognize as such at earlier stages?

And let's face it, slaves had the same unalienable rights as everyone else, they were ignored though, by refusing to accept that a slave was a person as envisaged by the Constitution.

What Webster "fails" to address" is an argument from silence. That Webster divides humanity into three general categories by itself says nothing about what he thought about the humanity of prenatal offspring of human parentage.

It was you who presented his published definitions as authoritative. To also suggest his personal philosophy should be seen with the same degree of authority is quite a leap of faith.

n humans after the end of the second month of gestation.

Uh, are you absolutely sure you want to insert this into your argument that a person is one from the moment of conception? Doesn't this definition legitimize abortions rather than proscribe them?

I think your strongest argument is in the area of natural rights. I do think you present your side well.

Take care.

--Until someone can prove the spriit doesn't take up residence with the soul at conception but at some later date, it is an arbitrary selfish (I would say self-appointed godhood) assumption to kill the newly conceived claiming 'no human is there yet.'--

Since there is no way to prove 'the residence of the soul', yours is a false logic.