Yes, this is a question of science or to use the old term, natural philosopy.
"Every individual in whatever stage of the human lifespan should be recognized as a "person" in law; otherwise, any socially disfavored individual or community (blacks, Jews, children, the autistic, the congitively impaired, alcoholics, the obese, what-have-you) can be excluded from the recognition of "human rights," the most fundamental of which is the right to simply go on living."
Please go on, how is this going to work? Will the socially disfavored be arrested and forced to under go abortions? If so, abortion is the least of our worries here, because this will obviously be under a brutal totalitarian regime.
So, getting from your first sentence to the next just doesn't work. And why does no one address my point that "Life" is a legal issue, not a scientific one? Is what I'm asking so far out? So unintelligible?
We can legally kill adult people. If someone is putting your life at risk, you can, if that's pretty much the only option, kill their adult butt. Don't the murderers have a right to life?
"Please go on, how is this going to work? Will the socially disfavored be arrested and forced to under go abortions?"
Disabled infants being intentionally killed by medical neglect, e.g. Downs babies being set aside to die by esophageal atresia. Brain trauma patients being sentenced to death by court order (e.g. the 2005 Florida case.) . Black people deprived of both life and liberty by U.S Supreme Court (Dred Scott decision.) Allegedly feeble-minded persons being forcibly sterilized (USSC Buck vs Bell.) Those are just examples that have happened or are happening in the USA. Then, of course, there's the whole Untermenschen extermination pushed by the National Socialists in 20th century Europe.
All of these are specific instances of what happens when a legal system fails to affirm that human rights and human life are coterminous.
"Why does no one address my point that "Life" is a legal issue, not a scientific one? "
I don't see how this has not been "addressed": not by agreement, but by rebuttal. The whole point of the article is that legal principles must be informed by the scientific facts. Do you think the the state has the authority to create two classes of human beings, one with rights and one without? This is one of the central themes of tyranny.
"We can legally kill adult people. If someone is putting your life at risk, you can, if that's pretty much the only option, kill their adult butt. Don't the murderers have a right to life?"
You can't legally kill adult people without due process of law. If someone is putting your life at risk and you "kill their adult butt," be prepared to answer for it to the police. The circumstances will be investigated; you may not be charged; or you may be brought to trial and acquitted; but don't think the court will consider it to be a matter of your own personal choice.
Yes, murderers have a right to life. They do not automatically and invariably get a death penalty. In this country, it's up to te jury to decide, via due process of law, whether any particular murderer has forfeited that right by his own deliberate and exceptionally heinous criminal actions.