Fertile ground for euphemism

I was listening to NPR this morning on the way to work.  Yes, I listen to NPR sometimes, it keeps my blood pressure up.  Anyway, they were talking about the Mississippi person-hood amendment.  Now, I'm not here to fisk the whole piece or anything but there was part in particular that irked me.  Well, actually two parts.  First, they said that the ammendment would redefine person-hood.  There is just so much wrong with that statement that it boggles the mind.  First, where do we get off saying that "we" define what makes a person.  I grant, from an atheistic and possibly an agnostic perspective, this does make sense since in the former people can basically define things as they please as there is no consequence, no judge save history.  And in the latter one can always plead ignorance.  But for a believer of any sort, person-hood is essentially defined by God and revealed on the natural level through those common characteristics of all people and through divine revelation as to the reality of the soul.  I'm sure the reporter meant that person-hood was being redefined in the legal, not philosophical sense, but it amounts to the same thing in practice.  And the track record for societies that try to split that hair isn't very good.
The second thing about the report that bothered me was that they said it redefined person-hood has beginning at "fertilization."  Note that they avoided the term conception.  In fact, they avoided the term for all of the report that I was able to listen to.  Why would they do this?  We, both words denote something as happening.  The term conception means that something is being conceived.  What is being conceived?  The immediate connotation is a baby, a new life.  The term fertilization makes one think of...lawn care.  The attempt to depersonalize the newly conceived child couldn't be more blatant. 
There are a couple of genuine concerns with the legislation that were brought up in the report such as how it would affect ectopic pregnancies, leading me to believe that the language could be tightened up a bit.  But then, I'm no lawyer.  In any case, I hope the amendment passes, as we will have at least one state where a the womb is not longer a dangerous place for a child to be.  Barring the various court challenges that are sure to follow of course.