You are absolutely correct, John. What Bork has asserted leaves out certain classes of individual humans who are addressed before the law anyway as human persons, though not human citizens. It would be instructive to note how a court deals with these 'non-persons' when they land in court or are confronted by law enforcement personnel ... their personage is assumed! This flies in the face of abortion rulings when applied to disenfranchised the unborn since the absence of definition before the law is in no way applied to disenfranchise the non-person illegal immigrant. What prevents the court from applying assumed personhood to the clearly alive, sensing unborn is 'convention' ... slaughter of the innocent is nothing but accepted convention, thus disenfranchisement again (as with slavery in the past) falls on tacit agreement to allow it regardless of morally or ethically right.
It is a convention of twisted society in which we dwell ... and tacit acceptance leads directly to a norm, if exploitation may be profitable!
Soon, that twisted convention of disenfranchisement by tacit agreement will be applied to embryonic and fetal individual human beings, in order to legally exploit individual humans for their body parts ... cannibalism is about to be convention in our twisted, 'amoral' society.
Correction to sentence/syllogism:
It would be instructive to note how a court deals with these 'non-persons' when they land in court or are confronted by law enforcement personnel ... their personage is assumed! This flies in the face of abortion rulings when applied to disenfranchised the unborn since the absence of definition before the law is in no way applied to disenfranchise the non-person illegal immigrant. Becomes ... This flies in the face of abortion rulings when applied to the disenfranchised unborn since the absence of definition before the law is in no way applied to disenfranchise the non-person illegal immigrant.