Which can only be applied to "fetuses" (unborn human individuals) if the legal concept of "personhood" is redefined. Now, while we would probably agree that the unborn are worthy of some legal protection, I would rather that "personhood" not be redefined from a legal perspective because doing so opens up a whole new can of worms with potential implications for citizenship (e.g., birth date vs. conception date, would an individual gain nationality status based on where they were conceived rather than born), and for legal rights (e.g., if the courts determined that a mother was not adequately protecting the legal rights of her unborn child, could they regulate her life in order to ensure that the child's legal rights are protected) in general.
The Fourteenth Amendment makes a clear and easily understood distinction between citizens and persons. And under its provisions, all persons are to be protected by the states.
Blackmun even admitted in Roe that if the “fetus” is a PERSON, they are “of course” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Do you, like Blackmun, choose to dehumanize the child, or do you think they are a person?
One last note: Politicians like Rand Paul are in fact WORSE than Blackmun. They admit that the child is a person, and then advocate that states can allow their killing if they see fit. They don’t even feel the need for Blackmun’s fig leaf.