ib.me.ub Wrote:Apparently under point 1. & 2. it is!
Considering #2 "2.a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.": humans are animals... and we already have a distinguishing term... that being "human".
Considering #1 "1.a human being, whether man, woman, or child": this here disregards utterly those humans who are neither man, woman, or child.
I rather reject your colloquial definitions of "person"
3, 5, 6, and 11 also support your idea that "person" merely means "human". I care not
Many humans are people... or are they? Are small children just as much people as adults... or adults as much people as children? Is every egg in a mother's ovaries a person, every sperm 'sacred'? Is a dog more a person than a cat? Is a woman less of a person than a man? Is a synthetic person less a person than one formed 'naturally'?This is the sense in which I am using person (and really anyone with the most obscure understanding of philosophy should be using it in this sense)... however: just what underlies the status of being a person... just "What is a person?"
And although it is a different question... it may in fact be more important than the first: "Why should it matter that a thing is a person or not?"
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
