Then how would you define those that were previously defined as 'persons'? An unborn baby is worlds different than what we call a 'person' today. It might be deserving of 'right to life', but I think it foolish to nullify the substance of the definition of 'person' just to protect the unborn. There are more respectable arguments for getting there.
I have read that at the time of the 13 colonies, abortion was allowed before the quickening which I believe is about 5 weeks. This was before modern science. I believe that the science of today clearly demonstrates that unborn babies are children and should be afforded the protection of all persons and citizens.
Howso? Simple logic would have told those 'before modern science' that an unborn baby, one, was a member of the human species, two, was a future person, and three, probably physically exhibited traits we associated with persons. I can't imagine them thinking that the unborn baby grows up in the womb as a formless mass and then suddenly forms into a child a day or two before birth.
All this said, I'm very curious as to what our founders and thinkers of the time thought about the unborn. I've not seen many quotes.
"Respectable"??
"Worlds different"??
Every person ever born, including you, was an unborn baby. The only difference is stage of growth.
To conclude that an unborn baby is not a person puts you in the same league as the Court that decided Roe.