The laws have always been written for "persons" - and what constitutes a "person" legally has changed throughout history. "Person" did not used to mean blacks, or women, or children or other categories of people. Do you deny that?
History, law, philosophy and cultural traditions have long seperated the idea of what "constitutes" a "person" from human being. Can you point to any laws, historical sources or traditions that label a blastocyst a person? Science itself is unable to accurately define a "person" though the consensus seems to be that there needs to be a certain level of neurological development.
Are there any laws that refer to constitutional protections for "human beings"?
Not at all.
You stated: "What makes any human being a person? The concept of personhood was invented to justify killing human beings before they are born. It is philosophical sophistry."
I pointed out the error in your statement - in other words, the concept of personhood had nothing to do with abortion and far pre-dates the issue. Who's practicing sophistry here?
The law also defines persons as corporations. What of it?
The law didn't used to define blacks as persons. We had to add an amendment to get that.
Maybe the use of literal legal definitions to support your position is flawed?
Not at all. Typically, constitutional amendments are required to expand the definition of what is a "person".
Not at all. I'm pointing out your flaw in relying on the legal definition of a "person".
It's not up to me to prove that something IS NOT - in other words, that all human beings are not persons. It's up to you - who make that argument - to prove that they are "persons".
I forget the exact quote here or the person who stated it....but it goes something to this effect.
I could state that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. But is too small to be detectable by any instruments. The burdon of proof is not on you to show that it does not exist but rather on me to show that it does.
Your rely on biology but all biology can show is that we are all members of the same species.
You rely on a literal legal definition from a legal dictionary - but that two is flawed since it also can mean a corporation and on top of that it makes a distinction between "person" and "natural person".
From a logical viewpoint - your argument is flawed because it boils down to:
All persons are human beings
Therefore all human beings are persons.
You don't have an adequate definition of a person.
You state all human beings are persons - I state not.
