The Abortion Debate

[Natas Ferret]

DecimusJuilii

(Sorry for splitting hairs, but this term really annoys me.)
Using that definition, Hitler did not murder 6 million people during WWII. It was written in Nazi Germany's Law that their extermination were perfectly legal. My whole point is, just because its legal, doesn't make it just.

Except the basis, for calling Hilter a murderer, wasn't using the Nazi Germany Law. It was the Allied's established determination of his attacks, that rendered him the title of "murderer."

[My credit card number is]

TheFiresOfStupid

Wrong, symbiosis does not give anything back unless it is mutualism.

Symbiosis is the main term, mutualism,, commencialism, and parasitism are subgroups of symbiosis.

Mutualism is mutually beneficial symbiosis.

Commencialism is when the symbiote gives nothing back but does no specific harm either.

Parasitism is when the symbiote not only gives nothing back but does harm that is directly caused by either its residence or its actions within the host.

Learn Biology.

I see nothing of this in the dictionary, but who cares what it's called? It's not mutual, whatever it is.

[ThePeerOrlando]

DecimusJuilii

Quote:

Murder - A legal term that refers to the illegal taking of a human's life with malicious intent. Abortion, being that it is legal, cannot be considered "murder" in the strictest sense of the word.

(Sorry for splitting hairs, but this term really annoys me.)
Using that definition, Hitler did not murder 6 million people during WWII. It was written in Nazi Germany's Law that their extermination were perfectly legal. My whole point is, just because its legal, doesn't make it just.

Justice is fickle and tends to be subjective. If FDR had been castrated and left to have his flesh fed upon by the crows, I would find that just. Others would not.

And no, Hitler didn't murder any Jewish people. None. 0. Zip. Nada. They were all legally executed.

[TheFiresOfStupid]

requietum ac adamo amor

Nethilia

Take a look around you. It's not as easy as "it's legal, so we're good." Abortion rights are slowly being chipped away in this country. Clinics are being pressured to close left and right to the point that in one state, there is ONE abortion clinic that women can access (and I doubt that someone would be delighted if there were only one health clinic running in a state, or one church). Doctors are refusing to learn the techniques, and some that don't have a problem are avoiding it thanks to pressures and threats on their lives. People are training pharmacists to get the job, show up, and DENY women their reproductive prescriptions under the idea that their religion finds it immoral--when NO other job would allow you to work there when you won't do the job you are hired to do. People seem to think that a teenager isn't capable of knowing she wants an abortion if she hasn't hit a certain age, so her parents should have to know or consent for her. But she's ready to be a mother at that age, yessir, and no one is allowed to talk her out of it. And that's no even half of it.

Women are being made to wait for a whole day for the procedure, and have anti-choice propaganda and medical lies flung at them. We have people saying that a woman's right to bodily integrity ends at sex--a right we don't even take away from convicted KILLERS. Tookie can be interred with all his s**t after capping four people but a woman spreads her legs and ******** her, her body's now the property of anyone wanting that fetus to exist? Our president is willing to place a supreme court justice that wants to overturn Roe V. Wade--and I can bet that if that's overturned, many states will fall all over themselves to be the first to ban it.

We argue becuase people would gladly take away the right from us. You fight for your rights, or people will take them from you under the guise of protecting you.

Hokay, well first may I say I look at this from a moral point of view, because science in this subject isn't worth s**t.

Oh, so because people disagree with you and pressure you a bit its a debate?

People put pressure on tabacco companies, porno industries, and alcohol manufacturers are attacked and pressured but they don't shut down. A doctor doesn't have to perform a abortion, nor learn the technique. A person can train under any medical feild they wish, and if abortion they wish to avoid they have that right.

Abortion clinics need funding, donate to them and more will pop up. Seriously, if people can donate to stupid s**t like african children they can also donate to protecting their own rights.

A child under 18 that is not emancipated has no legal rights to privacy or its own body. Its rights are to ensure its survival.

Education.
Food.
Shelter.
Or protection from abuse.

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy. A child having no rights to itself has no choice; the parents have total legal authority to that childs body.

Aswell, a fetus isn't a fully developed human being. But if I shot a seven year old would I be in trouble? A seven year old doesn't have full self recognition, or an understanding of itself or others. It has no legal rights to its body either. Can a child refuse its shots, or a dentist apointment? The answer being no shows that a child of even seven years of age has not developed full intellegence or legal right over itself; so it is about as useful, intellegent, and productive as a parrot.

But, I would be in trouble for ending its potential. Well an abortion ends potential aswell, but its legal. Why is killing a small child wrong when it is not developed and has the rights of a baseball bat?

Technically abortion is killing a human, because even if it is not developed it does belong to our species, so saying you aren't killing it would be false. But does it matter? Seriously why do you care? If it is legal why not just do it? People will never fully except it as an ok thing to do.

Aswell, some people say " that pregnancy doesn't happen on purpose. " Which is pure bullshit. Even if you use protection you acknoledge that there is a chance it will fail resulting in a pregnacy. You know its a risk and that reproduction is the main reason for sex.

Which is why I don't understand this all. Why try to justify it when you don't have to, or is impossible to do. Just do it, because it doesn't really matter what others think of it.

If a pharmacist refuses to give a woman her perscription so be it; report him/her to the police.

------------------------------------------------

Now, on my personal opinion of this subject I think it should be legal on the grounds that they will do it anyway. So we may aswell provide sterile and safe facilities to them. But, I think that a woman should have to be interveiwed by a psycologist and attend therapy for an abortion.

But, I also think that more money should be put into options aswell. Other birth controls for men, and a better adobtion program; so that women don't think abortion is the only choice other than keeping it. Aswell I know many think adobtion is easily availible, but in some states its almost impossible.

So in conclusion I must say although I agree that abortion needs more support I also think that they need to get over people disagreeing with them.

Interesting points.

Really the one I disagree with is your arguement that people will do it anyways.

Laws are always violated. A law being violated isn't good reason not to have it.

A better reason to not make abortion completely illegal, is because in certain cases it is necessary and justified.

[Talon-chan]

TheFiresOfStupid

People, now that you have actually shown me the wording of the ruling in McFall vs. Shrimp instead of just screaming out, "McFall vs. Shrimp!!!!!!!!!" as a reason for me being wrong I will point out that it is indeed relevant due to the horribly poor wording of its ruling (obviously my opinion).

This doesn't change my stance, but merely makes me disagree with the wording of the ruling on McFall vs. Shrimp.


The case itself has nothing to do with natural symbiosis, however the way the ruling is worded by the judges allows one to apply McFall vs. Shrimp to the abortion debate despite these major differences.


I apologize for calling it irrelevant, but I don't apologize for yelling at those that didn't write down the ruling and the judge's comments.

Screaming out the name of a court case at me isn't a good arguement. Giving me the details is.

The details AND a link to a webpage which provides details of the ruling are presented on the first page. Perhaps that is why people merely referred to the case without presenting all the information that is already there.

[requietum ac adamo amor]

TheFiresOfStupid

Interesting points.

Really the one I disagree with is your arguement that people will do it anyways.

Laws are always violated. A law being violated isn't good reason not to have it.

A better reason to not make abortion completely illegal, is because in certain cases it is necessary and justified.

Its not that the law will be broken anyway so much as that they will do at at great risk to themselves. Some women die from trying to force a miscarriage and therefor I just think they should have an abortion clinic available. Sure an abortion can be iewed as a waiste of life, but why waiste two?

[Nethilia]

requietum ac adamo amor

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy.

Wrong. Consent to sex =/= consent to continued pregnancy anymore than consent to smoking =/= consent to die via lung cancer.

[Talon-chan]

Nethilia

requietum ac adamo amor

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy.

Wrong. Consent to sex =/= consent to continued pregnancy anymore than consent to smoking =/= consent to die via lung cancer.

Agreed. I don't understand why people think that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy when clearly for every other situation where a risk is involved and should the worst come to fruition consent to the action that caused it is not consent to maintaining "the worst"

[TheFiresOfStupid]

Natas Ferret

TheFiresOfStupid

Who cares what the fetus is aware of or if it even is aware?

That's kind of the point.

Point for what?

It really doesn't matter. I don't care about cognitive function. Nor do I see it as the correct basis to give rights.

TheFiresOfStupid

Many downtrodden folks couldn't fight for their rights.

Now you're comparing born citizens, (country of origin unecessary), to that of a fetus. Way to "widen the scope."

Thats what happens when you argue pointless and irrelevant semantics

^_^

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

How does that take away a fetuses right if it doesn't fight for it?

While it would be more difficult for someone who was "downtrodden" to fight for rights. A fetus is utterly unaware of any "rights" it may or may not have garnered.
That is the impossibility, it's lack of being able to give a s**t about the rights to begin with.

Relevancy? I don't care about cognitive function. I don't see it as the basis for rights.

(I know I know, my bad for even responding to your question in the first place. I should've just said, "irrelevant" wink

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

What grants the mother more rights? What makes the mother's convience more important then a fetus' life?

Because she has an established personality, social structure, and some defined purpose. (be it by her, her family, or some other defining source). A fetus has none of these. Yet, you want to grant it more than her.

"Yet, you want to grant it more than her."

Prove that I do.

And prove that established personality, social structure, purpose (actually the fetus does have purpose, but that's unimportant right now) matter a bit in who should get rights.

Justify your position.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

You obviously don't understand my stance, making your questions very irrelevant.

Or your stance is rather headed for a wall, since it's hard to be neutral, on a runaway train.

Gee, I'm still pretty nuetral, and I haven't hit any walls yet.

*waits for this wall to show up, skeptically*

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

Trying to imply I'm a misogynist also makes you look foolish. Instead of failing to appeal to my emotions, why not argue with logic?

The ******** you talking about? I'm asking, since you think the Constitution is "just a piece of paper," where the "rights" that are supposed to be granted to a fetus, are to come from? Don't be so quick on your little defencive stance.

They should be coming from the Governmental power which is the only thing that makes that piece of paper even slightly important.

As for the defensive stance, that happens when some idiot asks, "Why do you think a fetus gets more rights then a woman?"

When I never said anything like that.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

Are you going to do that sometime soon?

Are you going to make a point soon, that doesn't dissolve into "This is my definition, therefore I am right?"

Gee so much worse then "this is on a piece of paper that's been pretty edited over the years, so its absolutely right"

Basically, I made my point with the three original posts. I kind of thought you would've read them, but you decided to jump in halfway.

Seeing as how I dislike repeating myself continuously, you can see how I'd be resistant to making an exception for dear little you.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

And if we don't actually have the right to live, then why is it illegal for me to kill you?

That goes into where the other federal laws, in this case specifying murder, come into play.

Why do these laws exist if they aren't protecting rights?

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

More semantics. I'm implying the system needs to be changed.

Or you just don't look into law much. Which isn't surprising. Few do.

Great answer. OooOOoOoOo.... ^.^

So are you going to disagree with me that the system needs to be changed or are you going to try to pointlessly insult me?

Waiting...

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

If you state that we don't have a right to live, then it merely proves my point that change is needed, but in this case even more change.

Or that it just isn't a guranteed "right." And instead that life is protected by laws, rather than something that is compulsive. Otherwise self-defence could be a big no-no.

So what are our rights? And you still haven't argued against change, merely told me how it is.

Thanks for the extra knowledge, but do you agree or disagree?

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

As I said before I represent neither of the two sides you assume are all that exists within this debate.

And your take, which hasn't fallen into anything except "pro-choice, with a twist!" hasn't really made me reconsider anything, for any take on the arguments here.

Yeehaw. Then we must both be having a blast.

I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to defend my stance.

Which has still not hit that wall you claim is heading for me.

"Pro choice with a twist"

that was pretty good. ^_^ made me smile a little.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

Basically the Consitution is only as good as the government's enforcement of it.
It also isn't an inherantly morally right object in itself. The constitution Prohibited achohol, it didn't allow women or blacks to vote.

Apparently you're unfamiliar with the Amendments, in the Constitution, that changed that.
Way to go, ignorance!

Apparently you aren't aware of my point. I'm telling you that the Constitution, being that it has been edited by Amendments before, isn't a moral absolute. Which really should be obvious too someone as knowledgable as yourself.

The -ed suffix on the word "prohibit" implies past tense and should've been a good clue. Which implies that it no longer is that way.

Way to go illiteracy!

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

So if the right to life doesn't exist in the Constitution then it should, and it missing from the Constitution (if indeed it is) doesn't mean that's good at all.

Or it means that it isn't necessary to give a "right to life," when you can write law to protect the life that already is.

Well, it isn't working that good, because there are few humans it isn't protecting.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

Once again, how is it illegal for me to kill you, if being alive isn't a right?

Your ignorance of law is amusing, the more you tug at this base.
The Constitution, for the power it grants, does not necessitate all laws. That is where the varying federal and state laws come into play.
Murder, as it currently stands, has been defined as a regularly illegal practice.
Why? It goes into the definitions, dealing with citizenry and such.

So its not a right, merely a set of laws defined down the board as being the same.

Doesn't sound as good as being a right, but all in all, maybe it would make you, being a law major or lawyer of some kind happier, if I simply stated that there should be laws protecting a fetus from death, depending on the situation.

Because humans have an objective right to life (not a Constitutional one.)

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

Also is a right not to be raped?
If not why is it illegal? What basis is behind that law if there is no right?

This stems from the laws protecting a person, and guranteeing them a measure of safety and bodily integrity. It doesn't have to be a "right" to be protected in law.

So bodily integrity is also not a right then, merely protected by law?

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

You want to argue semantics? Fine. I can play your game too.

Or, from what you've got so far, you can't.

I never said I can argue semantics well.

I think it stems from the fact that I actually like my debates to matter even slightly.

A win in semantics isn't much at all. I feel no pain giving up there.

So continue by all means to argue semantics. I'll ignore it and continue to ask you questions that pertain to the real issue.

If a fetus should be protected as a human.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

Don't you read through the posts in a thread?

Of course.
And again: where is the redefinition? So far you've been regurgitating the same things of how your "definitions" are somehow "superior." And it falls onto how you wield a biological knowledge.
Hooray for you? So you can define what limits a species. That's great and all.
Still doesn't garner why a fetus, regardless of it's being human, should be given power over the woman.

It doesn't garner that, mainly because I've not been saying that.

Alrighty, the redefinition is as follows.

Most laws protect people.

People is subjective and easy to redefine.

It can be used to exclude homosexuals, blacks, retarded people, children, etc. etc.

Because it is defined socially.

If we instead use human, (based on species, DNA, and organism definitions) these are biologically defined and in my opinion better, because they can't be redefined. Biology is pretty clear on what constutes a member of the human species.

So the capability of a government or group to redefine person is no longer based on logic and can be easily argued against, because we will no longer use it.

There should also be inherant rights for humans.

that are negated if a lower priority in comparison to the right it clashes with.

I'm trying now to guess how much of that will be quoted out of context and argued semantically instead of on the actual points.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

Today, you could decide you wanted to manipulate a guy into staying with you by getting pregnant. You could sabotage yourself (the condoms and birth control) get pregnant and when the guy decides that no, screw that, he won't be manipulated like that, because the baby is no longer useful to you, you could go in and abort it.

As you said yourself, that is far from common practice. Nor has there been a "rise." Perhaps you feel there is, but the recent decline, in abortions, disagrees with you.

You misunderstand.

I never said rise in abortions.

I said rise in that "attitude".

Which means that more of the abortions that are happening are unjustified.

(Not a huge change, but it is slowly increasing)

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

You assume every abortion is justified because a woman made the choice,

Where did I assume this?

Not cool when someone puts words in your mouth eh?

In any case sorry for the assumption.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

but you forget that women can make just as bad of choices as men. You forget that there are some women who wouldn't be harmed at all by abortion but see it like a "morning after" version of wearing a condom. Just birth control, because they don't want to be bothered giving birth.

No. I didn't forget that. However, unlike you, I try not to make such blatant assumptions, for one, and I also try not to limit someone else's choices, because some idiot ******** it up.
Which, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be implying just that: limit the choice, because some people abuse it.

What other possible reasons would you limit a choice for?

People abusing something is generally one of the main reasons we limit things.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

You would be sorely mistaken for that assumption.

As you already are, for assuming so much, from what little I have posted.

Assumuptions are unfortunate, but the words hold true, anyone would be sorely mistaken for that assessment.

The fact that you aren't assuming that is very refreshing to me, and I apologize for thinking that you did.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

A gauge dear, not an investigation. A list of risk factors to watch for that will get a justification issued.

Your condescending remark of "dear" is trivial, offensive, and entertaining.

Glad I entertained you.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

Doctor signs and on you go.

Would these be the same kinds of doctors deciding to keep women from obtaining their contraceptive prescrptions, based on their own "moral" grounds? There's a reason such power shouldn't be given to one person.

I don't agree with the legality of objections like that.

I also think hefty penalties should be assigned for that.

But you are right, it is an issue that makes what I want instituted less feasible right now.

That doesn't make me abandon my stance, just makes me try to think of ways we can fix that problem in the future.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

And with new breakthroughs in medical technology it will get even faster.

Which does little, to nothing, in affecting the mental capability, or financial stability, of the mother.
Medical technology can advance as far as we can get it to. That won't stop the poor from being unable to raise children in a healthy environment.

That's where improving adoption and eliminating much of its problems come from.

This is obviously going to be a long process.

That's why I enjoyed the "pro choicer with a twist" comment so much.

It fits really well, since I have little choice but to vote pro choice, since the other option is so much worse and my stance isn't feasible with the material we have now.

But I never argued feasibility. I argued that I'm right.

Just because we can't do it now, doesn't make my point less valid.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

What makes the mother superior?

As covered before, she has much more garnered for herself. Whereas the fetus, aside from feeding, has nothing.
It is why I find putting the fetus before the mother's life, insulting to those who struggle to live each day.

What you find insulting is subjective.

I attribute all humans a certain few basic rights.

Very communistic of me, I know, but that is the conclusion I've come to.

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

Once again, irrevelant. I don't think rights should be granted based on cognitive capabilies. because the severely retarded can be left out of that, coma patients (who have a chance of awakening) can be left out of that.

They can be. Or there can be laws written to protect them.

*shrug*

then perhaps I should argue for laws to be written for fetuses


Time to go.

[requietum ac adamo amor]

Nethilia

requietum ac adamo amor

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy.

Wrong. Consent to sex =/= consent to continued pregnancy anymore than consent to smoking =/= consent to die via lung cancer.

Wrong, as I have stated; having sex, even with protection there is a chance of getting pregnant and you know it.

An unemancipated human under the age of 18 has no legal rights to its body, and therefor has no will in this. If the parents want her to abort they can. If they want her to keep it she must.

Anyway since when wasn't sex a consent to prolonged pregnancy? Only in the past 100 or so years have we been able to abort safely. ( To my knoledge. ) So, a child having sex by consent acknoledges the chance of pregnancy; therefor she also acknoledges the risk of her parents making her keep it.

As children are underdeveloped subhumans with limitted rights they take the risk of a continued pregnancy with the very act of sex itself.

[S. Shark]

Nethilia

requietum ac adamo amor

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy.

Wrong. Consent to sex =/= consent to continued pregnancy anymore than consent to smoking =/= consent to die via lung cancer.

I wasn't aware a child could consent to sex. Which would mean children can't consent to pregnancy. No rights, remember?



And, uh, just something I noticed that was rather humorous. The court case is Shimp, not Shrimp. xD

[+the_pink_blueberry+]

requietum ac adamo amor

Nethilia

requietum ac adamo amor

Unless raped a child has given consent to sex, and therefor conset to pregnancy.

Wrong. Consent to sex =/= consent to continued pregnancy anymore than consent to smoking =/= consent to die via lung cancer.

Wrong, as I have stated; having sex, even with protection there is a chance of getting pregnant and you know it.

An unemancipated human under the age of 18 has no legal rights to its body, and therefor has no will in this. If the parents want her to abort they can. If they want her to keep it she must.

Anyway since when wasn't sex a consent to prolonged pregnancy? Only in the past 100 or so years have we been able to abort safely. ( To my knoledge. ) So, a child having sex by consent acknoledges the chance of pregnancy; therefor she also acknoledges the risk of her parents making her keep it.

As children are underdeveloped subhumans with limitted rights they take the risk of a continued pregnancy with the very act of sex itself.

I love how you say that aminor can't choose whether or not to keep the baby, but is suddenly respionsible enough to take care of herself during pregnancy.

Also, what about this situation? The last time I talked to my legal guardian, I was 15. By the time the emancipation paperwork would have gone through I would have been almost 18 anyways, and there was no one else who could take custody of me. So, if I was 17 and got pregnant, would you have trusted my mother, whom I haven't talked to in years, to make the decision instead of me? Suprisingly, my situation isn't as uncommon as you would think.

[Treacherous Desire]

requietum ac adamo amor

Wrong, as I have stated; having sex, even with protection there is a chance of getting pregnant and you know it.

Not necessarily.

Accidents happen. People get drunk and fool around.

Do you really think that someone who is completely wasted who doesn't use protection is consenting to pregnancy? They consented to get trashed, sure, however are they responsible for the actions they took when they were drunk.

In one case, where a woman smashed her car into another car at the Canada/America border, killing two teenagers, she was found innocent because her medication had rendered her judgement and perception off.

And how are we to tell those who did use protection from those who didn't anyway. Merely ask?

Did you use contraception?
No.
NO ABORSHUN FOR YOU!!!
I mean. Yessssss.
Oh. Alright. Go on in.

[Talon-chan]

TheFiresOfStupid

Natas Ferret

TheFiresOfStupid

Who cares what the fetus is aware of or if it even is aware?

That's kind of the point.

Point for what?

It really doesn't matter. I don't care about cognitive function. Nor do I see it as the correct basis to give rights.

Then what do you view as the correct basis for giving rights? Further how do you justify using that basis?

Quote:

Quote:

TheFiresOfStupid

What grants the mother more rights? What makes the mother's convience more important then a fetus' life?

Because she has an established personality, social structure, and some defined purpose. (be it by her, her family, or some other defining source). A fetus has none of these. Yet, you want to grant it more than her.

"Yet, you want to grant it more than her."

Prove that I do.

P1. A born person has no right to use another person's body as a mechanism for survival against that person's will or without that person's consent even if consent was granted at one point and then revoked at a later time.
P2. A fetus has all the rights of a born person and no more.
C. A fetus does not have the right to use another person's body as a mechanism for survival against that person's will or without that person's consent even if consent was granted at one point and then revoked at a later time.

To grant a fetus the irrevokable *right* to be born regardless of the woman's consent or will is to grant it a right that no born person has.

Otherwise you would have to explain how a fetus using a woman's body in order to survive until birth is different from one born person forcing another born person to be a mechanism for their survival against their will.


Further, how do you classify "human"? I made a post to DigitalLucifer a few days ago:

Quote:

If something is "human" it can be classified as being part of the human species. My skin is "human" skin, for surely it is not cat or dog. Human the adjective, I'm sure we agree on, simply means it is part of the human species and be qualified as such.

Human the noun, as in... something is "a human" extends further than that to me. And at some point in time you agreed with this (Tpau said: "In fact, all my body cells, individualy, are human. They are not, however, people," and you agreed in the following post).

I want to know what defines "a human." Because to me "A human" gets rights. "A human" is what personhood entails. I as a whole am a person, my skin is not a person. My human (adj) skin does not have rights, any right one may grant it are truly rights granted to me the person/human (noun) whom that skin belongs to. To me something that is merely "human," or "that which can be classified as having come from a homosapien," does not meet the actual qualifications of personhood regardless of the common usage of the word as is defined by any given dictionary (and you've agreed to as much).

Even after reading your post I still don't understand how or where you make/find that distinction. Stating that merriam websters, dictionary.com, or any other dictionary defines "person" as "human" or that some/any/every dictionary says that common usage for the word "person" is such that it includes all things human doesn't really alleviate the problem for me... because I know you agree that there is a difference between "a person" and "human (adj)," you've said as much yourself! So obviously even you disagree with the definition that states "person (noun): human (adj)."

And if you truly meant to say that "Person (noun): human (noun)" then you may as well have said "person (noun): person (noun)" because the two are synonyms and nothing has been done to actually explain what is "a human" and "a person." It's like saying "a car is a motorvehicle" when you don't know what either term actually is. You need to say "a car is a transportation unit that generally has 4 wheels and runs on a combustion engine that permits it to reach speeds generally no higher than 100 miles per hour," "A motorvehicle is any transportation unit that provides movement of passengers" - And as such a car is classified as a motorvehicle (while leaving room open for other things, such as motorcycles, trains, busses, and plains to also be classified as motorvehicles).

You said: "I attribute all humans a certain few basic rights" So what is "a human" to you, and how is that different from being merely "human" (adj)