Metabolism Definition Webster
Why doesn’t the legal defintion of human life agree with the medical definition?
Legal:
Quoting from U.S. v. Nelson, 53 M.J. 319, 323 (2002):
The term “human being” means a child that was “born alive,” and that “born alive” means that child was wholly expelled from its mother’s body and possessed or was capable of an existence by means of a circulation independent of her own.
Medical:
(“Human” from Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/human
: a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo (H. sapiens: man; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae
(“Life” from Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/life
1 a: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional plant or animal from a dead body b: a state of living characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Marlboro King, baby, I think you need to grant me a reprieve from Politics. 
I’m not exactly sure I follow all the definitions. They seem to be describing three different things.
As far as I understand it, the medical definition of life in regards to humans is described in stages which have very specific purposes and very specific meanings, such that it matches other forms of life. Stages such as embryo, zygote, etc are all terms used in the medical community. I’m not completely sure how these terms are used in a legal setting.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not disparaging life or those who consider a zygote to be a “human being” (even though the first respondent was so kind as to call my wife, mother and some close friends “whores”). I just don’t see the basis for altering medical definitions to meet social needs.
Of course, again, maybe I’m just not following the question properly.
(((Dana)))
Howdy MM!
Q 4 Believers in Abiogenesis
Metabolism Masterclass