D.Sklansky: Why is an embryo a person?

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think the commonest flaw in how this discussion is framed is confusing 'human' with 'person'?

[/ QUOTE ]

This skirts the issue hardcore. So let's say we can come up with legitimate reasons to distinguish between 'humans' and 'people'. Now, do laws prohibiting murder protect all 'humans', or just 'people'? And which should they do? Coming up with these distinctions doesn't solve anything, in my opinion, it just rephrases the question.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
So let's say we can come up with legitimate reasons to distinguish between 'humans' and 'people'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Societies have and use them all the time,and quite consistantly, as I suspect you actually do. It's a very important distinction to make.

Building collapses - "Did any of the people survive?" By your claim that they are equivalent terms, then I have to answer, "yes", because there are human bodies in there. But I've always assumed the questioner wanted to know if the Person(s) survived and I'd answer "No" if all there was left was human arms, human legs, or whole humans but now without the person still using the body.

I'd love to hear DS use clearly defined terms in a restatement of his argument. DS will use them however he wants in making his case, but if he uses them, as you are suggesting, in a sense that there are no "legitimate reasons to distinguish" then I will stick to just reading his poker comments.