[EternalVigilance]

You have to keep repeating that to prevent the distinction between a statutory person and a biological person from getting in.

You're now admitting that we're talking about a biological person? Maybe we're making progress.

effectively changing the law by rhetorical subterfuge

The supreme law says:

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It's hard for me to imagine a phrase that could be any more of a "rhetorical subterfuge" than the euphemism "statutory person."

Like Blackmun and his colleagues you're using lawyer-talk to dehumanize the child and leave them with absolutely no protection. That's the bottom line.

Fifty-four million and counting now...

[tacticalogic]

It's hard for me to imagine a phrase that could be any more of a "rhetorical subterfuge" than the euphemism "statutory person."

You've got one kind of "person" that can only be biological person, and one that can be a person, corporation, city, or country. If that strains your comprehension then we're probably at the end of the discussion.

The laws come with their own definitions of the terms used that may not be the same as the definitions used outside of that context. If you change the definitions, you've effectively changed the law. If you're doing that then you're assuming the power that was granted to the legislature.