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,
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.