Samsara, you are going over old ground that was covered somewhere in the last interminable 440 posts. I will fill you in. Essentially the argument of the anti-choice movement represented here is that scientists refer to "human zygotes". They are human because of the deoxyribonucleic acid, a chemical template for humans. The next step is that Black's Law Dictionary defines "person" as "human", therefore any mention of person in the constitution means human, and therefore a zygote. They also consider that frozen zygotes and dead people are human too.
They say, therefore the zygotes with no nervous system have the rights of the constitution. These anti-choice fundamentalists will scream at you and call you names if you suggest that the constitution is referring to humans that are born or sentient or conscious like you are doing.
Some of them really don't care at all about the sad course of human history, and have literally equated the practice of abortion to the Nazi mass murder of the Jewish people. They consider that abortion is also mass murder and refuse to recognize that a mothers choice to terminate a pregnancy even when it is a blob of cells, is not equivalent to the living conscious agony of gas chambers. That is the type of people you are dealing with here.
My take on this is that zygotes are indeed human in a sense, and dead people are indeed human in a different sense. They both contain human DNA templates. Our living functioning population is human in even different sense. But the fundamentalist anti-choice people don't want to make any distinction. And they claim that the founders of the constitution don't make that distinction. They will scream at you and call you names if you try to make that distinction.
So their argument becomes ludicrous when they give zygotes and dead people constitutional rights. Dead people should have the right to vote. The census should also count people in cemeteries, and count pregnant women twice. The list goes on.
Their proof tries to use hard logic on elastic English words with multiple meanings. Any mention that you can't use hard logic on English words without consideration of the multiple meanings in natural language, will bring more screaming and insults at you for being dogmatic, stupid, etc.
So that is the story as far as the particular argument you are making.
