Agreed! Excellent book.

You did not make exceptions in your points, so by the definition you put forward they are human, but not persons. My point is that person-hood is far more nuanced than merely genetics. It baffles me that you can argue that people agreeing that corporations have rights as people is valid but people agreeing that…

So by your 3 points of definition a 3 year old human child is also not a person, nor is a severe autistic person and are not entitled to the rights and protections of person-hood. In another post you said we have never applied person-hood to a non-human being and that is false, the supreme court recently recognized…

http://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Heinlein—All%20you%20zombies.htm

He looks way too relaxed to have been forced to sit that way. Unless of course he was drugged too. To me it just looked like he was enjoying the sunset.