Human Personhood

One would think the term "human personhood" is redundant. No one can be the first without being the second.

In 1819, the US Supreme Court determined that a "corporation" must be treated with the same entitlements as an individual citizen. But, under the infamous Dred Scott case in 1857, African slaves and their descendents were determined "non-citizens" and not entitled to sue in US courts. Dred Scott was determined to have "no standing" to sue for his own freedom. Are you outraged?

The Court repeated the same error in 1973 when declaring "privacy" to trump the 1st Amendment "right to life."

Then, 1st Amendment rights took precedence when the Courts re-affirmed the "corporation's" entitlement to "free speech" as an individual in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) case in 2010.

So, in the end, the First Amendment takes precedence (as it should). However, the Courts apply "personhood" to a fictitious entity in one case and fails to apply actual "personhood" to the more obvious unborn. Does anyone else see "conflict of interest" in these cases?