Replies

I still haven't got the vaguest idea of what your differentiation between spirit and soul are.

Is the 'spirit', 'aliveness', versus 'non-aliveness'? Such as a rock is not alive but a bacteria is alive?

What is the 'soul'. Someone else says the 'soul' is 'eternal', therefore it always has existed and shall always exist.

Tell me succinctly, what you think 'spirit' is.

Personally, I think that a few billion years ago, some molecules got together, and were hit by lightning or something, and began to be 'alive' and somehow gained the ability to reproduce, and that all known life on earth is derived from that initial 'amoeba', or what ever it was, and we have subsequently evloved through like a 'tree of life', and that all 'living' organisms can be traced and perhaps contain atoms from, that 'original' first living thing.

In otherwords, Adam was a sort of amoeba, or something like that, and that Eve was created from Adam's 'rib' when the 'amoeba' divided to reproduced itself.

In law, as the Constitutional provisions now read, the legal person is an individual born in the United States or naturalized through legal immigration.

Not good enough. For one thing, this is a moral ethical issue that goes far beyond mere legality as we are talking about unalienable rights which the founders proclaimed were self-evident and in no need of legal support. No man can abrogate an unalienable right. The idiots on the Supreme Court in 1854 said slaves were 3/5 of a man - so much for legality! Furthermore, the Constitution does not say that only the people who are BORN are persons - I don't care what the debased interpretors say - they make it up as they go along.

Second, where in the Constitution does it give a justice the moral or legal authority to say the unborn AT ANY STAGE is not a person with rights? Hmm? Nowhere! In fact, what do the founders mean when they refer to rights for their "posterity"? Gee, could that mean "yet unborn children"? And where in the constitution does it talk about a "right to privacy"? I don't see it! It doesn't take a legal genius to read the Constitution!

If you're looking for the spiritual definition of human person, I'll defer to soemone else to address that for you ... people don't like my answers/opinions on spirit; I suppose that's why XBob continues to ignore the many invitations to address that instead of the human soul.

The Supreme court definition is PURELY ARBITRARY and is based on nothing other than their ideology, not logic or unalienable human rights. I'm looking for a REAL LIFE definition, not a spiritual one. The being in the womb is alive and is real. I'm still waiting for you to tell me the difference between a human being and a person! Can you tell me? Can any of the reprobates in black robes tell me? No, and you and they never will be able to tell me simply because a human being is a person is a human being.

Methinks that the Supreme Court and all pro-abortion nazis are moral midgets who are unable to defend their position on logical, moral and ethical grounds.

Actually, you've given the definition of citizen, not person. The law recognizes non-citizens as persons (and even corporations.).
The result of the poor logic and wording of Roe v. Wade is that such confusion arises.

Here's a discussion about the human being and personhood:

http://unbornperson.com/section_4.htm

(also see Note 1, at the bottom of the reference)

In our civil law, one requisite for citizenship is birth. The placing of this condition is not to be construed as an attempt to deny personhood to the unborn of human parentage. Rather it seems to be a consequence of the need for legal evidence to uphold the existence of any given person as a countable member of the citizenry. This would be the same as saying that being born under certain conditions, such as from parents who are citizens, is a legal basis for becoming a citizen.

If our civil law would have attempted to distinguish between persons who are citizens and persons "in utero," there could have been a practical reason for such a distinction. By the nature of the case, the unborn person cannot participate in many of the activities for which the government must legislate. Even more pressing is the legal problem of establishing the existence of human beings before they are born, especially in early stages of their gestation. In days of less sophisticated embryology, the very sure evidence of birth could easily be used to establish the existence of a person whose privileges and obligations of citizenship might legally be established. The more delicate criterion of physical movement within the womb, known as quickening, was sometimes used for legal purposes, but not for establishing citizenship. (4)

The Dred Scott decision (7) is an example of the dangers and difficulties involved in government's attempt to decide the relationship between citizenship and personhood, even for persons already born. The Supreme Court's hearing, on October 11, 1972, relative to the constitutionality of the abortion laws of Texas and Georgia, is the first instance in which the Court had faced the issue of whether or not an unborn of human parentage is a constitutionally legal person. (Prior to this time, personhood had been taken for granted, with property rights and claims for damage being accredited to the unborn.)

Roe v.Wade decided against legal personhood for the unborn, due to the oversight of our Founding Fathers to have explicitly mentioned the unborn in the Bill of Rights. The competency of their decision does not extend itself to a denial of the personhood of the unborn. The Court admitted this lack of competency. (In defense of our Founding Fathers, at a time when human beings were the fledgling nation's greatest natural resource, they could never have imagined that citizens would one day demand legal sanction for killing their own offspring.)

In reference to this case, previously heard in October of 1971, an "amicus" brief, submitted by Dr. Joseph Witherspoon, S.J.D., Professor of Law, University of Texas at Austin, admirably demonstrates the intent of the Founding Fathers and offers many consequent legal precedents to the effect that the unborn of human parentage are legal persons and are included, implicitly, in our Bill of Rights. In the same hearing another "amicus" brief was accepted by the Court, on behalf of some two-hundred and fifty medical doctors, formulated by Mr. Dennis Horan, "et al," attorneys, to uphold the humanity, even from conception, of the unborn of human parentage. (8)