[ QUOTE ]
I'm just pointing out that that's an exceptionally silly definition to use in the context of this debate. Framing the question of abortion as, "Does this entity have the right to life?" is entirely circular. In addition, I don't think that definition is what anyone means when they use "person" in a discussion about morality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are mistaken in a few ways... none of which is very pertinent to this thread, unless D.Sklansky has a problem with the definitions.

EDIT:
That being said... a "living human being" is usually synonymous with "person". When someone dies, they are no longer a "living human being", and therefore no longer a "person". The question of when "personhood" begins, is the critical question in the abortion debate. This thread is about what criteria determines when someone is a "living human being" (a person). Using the term "person" is simpler and keeps people from equivocating. Is a zygote alive? yes. Is it human? Yes. Is it "a human"? Umm... do you mean, a "living human being" (or "person")? That's the question. I've never met anyone who had a problem with these definitions -- everyone seems to understand what they mean, and it's pretty simple terminology to use in this discussion to keep people from equivocating.

Anyway, I only updated this response to give you the benefit of the doubt... No more on this from me unless others think this is a serious line of enquiry (preferably D.Sklansky).