You said that dead human beings are persons. The constitution has many references to the word "person" and the word "citizen" which is legally defined as a "person" born in the US, etc.
I know that you did not explicitly argue that, but your argument implicitly leads to that, whether you said it or not. I am using your argument on how you define humans and how you say it is an equivalent to persons.
According to your definition of person:
By the 14th amendment (congressional members are apportioned by the number of persons), the dead and unborn should be counted in the census.
By the 19th amendment, the dead have the right to vote.
Again, you were not arguing the above, but the logic you used forces that ludicrous conclusion. I must say that your logic leads to the weirdest interpretations of the constitution.
Is that your argument why the constitution as interpreted by your definition of human is not ludicrous? You are still being ludicrous.
Now if you are saying that my argument is a logical fallacy, and you are using the same rules in your argument, then you have also made the same argumentative fallacy. In short, you are saying your own argument is logical fallacy.
I think I have clarified how your use of your logic leads to an absurd conclusion on the interpretation of other aspects of the constitution, although you stayed away from that bag of worms.
I am still waiting for you to explain away the constitutional absurdities to which your type of argument leads.
