It is the idea that a person is different and distinct from a human being that is needing proof here coyote. We have already established that unborns are indeed human beings.
Show me some law (law is written by legislatures) that states that human beings prior to the time of their birth are denied the protection of the 14th amendment. For that matter, show me some law that differentiates between human beings and people. Or show me some law that establishes a difference between human beings and people.
Of course you are. Spirits, religious doctrine. This is what you are using to support your position. It is the only thing you have and if you are going to use religious doctrine to support your position, then it is no more valid than a red faced bible thumper who is shouting thou shall not kill.
The law defines persons as human beings. Show me some legislated law that says that all human beings are not persons.
Declaring that a group of human beings are not people and not deserving of the constitutional rights that all human beings have is going to require some law in order to be constitutional. Kindly bring the law here and show me or drop this invalid line of argument.
Are you arguing that unborns are corporate entites? If you are, then you are going to need to prove that they are the sorts of corporations that may not be viewed as persons, and if you are not, then human being is the only legal definition of person that you are left with. The logic is impeccable which is why it is so frustrating to you. If it weren't, you could have sidestepped this issue long ago.
Show me some law that states that all human beings are not persons. If you are wanting to argue law, then you need to be prepared to show some law. If you aren't arguing the law, what is your point?
