[goldstategop]

I think legal recognition of personhood is the right way to go. It would shift the debate from a woman's body to who is the unborn and does it have rights? We won't make much progress if we are seen as anti-woman and motivated by a desire to run her life. We'd be better off arguing our understanding of when life begins has grown significantly since 1973 and now its time to revisit the question of personhood.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[mvpel]

As it stands right now, someone renting a home has more legal rights than an unborn, and has an extensive system of due process before they can be evicted. If abortion were legally treated like evicting someone in the middle of a harsh winter, that would be a giant step towards improving the lot of the unborn.

[papertyger]

It would shift the debate from a woman's body to who is the unborn and does it have rights?

You can rest assured of one thing...advocates of abortion will never let us shift the focus off "a woman's body."

[William Terrell]

I think legal recognition of personhood is the right way to go.

I would agree, if it would work. But, the 14th amendment already defines personhood, according to the Supreme Court. If mere legislation was passed to define it otherwise, it's my theory the Supreme Court will rule it unconstitutional.

[Arthur McGowan]

Roe v. Wade says that if Congress passes a statute saying that if Congress were to pass a statute declaring that the fetus is a “person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, appellant’s case collapses.” In other words, it is CONGRESS that has chosen, for 34 years, to leave Roe v. Wade in place.