- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 4,138
- Reaction score
- 807
- Location
- Volunteer State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The Latin verb “per-sonare” means “to sound through”. It is a sound effect through which a special face mask was made to resonate with the voice of the actor. The related old Latin term “persona” referred to the face mask of the actor in the drama that portrayed a certain character in the part of the play. Later, it simply meant a character in acting. The word “person” also could be traced to the old French word “persone”, which appeared in English usage at around 1200. The term “persone” simply meant a human being. All these evolving terms could be traced to the ancient Etruscan word 'phersu', which means a mask.
Therefore, the term “person” is simply a word created by ancient people to denote an inanimate object which later represented something else. In this case, a face mask which later represent the character in a play. In modern usage it simply stood as a pronominal function for the term “human being”.
In abortion culture of Roe v Wade, the term was hijacked and repackaged as a death mask to hide the humanity of the unborn human being. In its place, the unborn is portrayed as a blob of inanimate object, vilified as parasitic intruders in character, and thus justifiable for the mass slaughter with impunity and guilt free.
As you had mentioned regarding the Roman censes, only family head male adults endowed with property were counted as persons, the rest such as other poor adult males without property, slaves, women and children weren’t counted as persons. So, by your criterion, it would be ok with you when a sub-class of human beings are classified as non-persons by economic status and as such could be slaughtered en mass at will with impunity by a tyrant. Don’t you see that your argument regarding censes as a measure of person is ridiculous?
If “other males, women, and racial minorities" could fight "their way into the account”, then by the same logic the advocates of the unborn human beings should also be able to fight their way into the account on their behalf.
If by convention, “personal condition" can be "assigned to children and disabled in general”, so also it should be the case that personal condition should be assigned to unborn human beings.
If by “a juridical fiction, a company is also a ‘person’”, why should you deny the unborn as a person when the legal definition of “person” simply means a human being? There is nothing “fictitious” about the biological fact that a human procreated prenatal life is a human being.
If your only logic is that a fictitious company should be legally granted as a person but not the unborns simply “because it can make itself be heard”, then millions of infants, children and adults who are either born mute, deaf, in a coma, or with brain trauma/diseases that rendered them incapable of making themselves heard would be categorically dismissed by you as non-persons.
I don’t really care whether you acknowledge a prenatal human life as a person or not. As ridiculous as it is with your contortion to sustain a system of labeling for class segregation, it wouldn’t be something I want to waste my time on if it is just a childish drama in play acting.
You can deny, exclude or embrace any group of people or fictitious boogeymen as “persons” or “chowmeins” or “hoopeehoopla” all you want. But, when you attempt to justify it for slaughter in whatever means you use in denying the life of innocence, who cannot make itself to be heard, then you have the ultimate responsibility to justify your lethal course with intelligent argument.
