Not good enough. For one thing, this is a moral ethical issue that goes far beyond mere legality as we are talking about unalienable rights which the founders proclaimed were self-evident and in no need of legal support. No man can abrogate an unalienable right. The idiots on the Supreme Court in 1854 said slaves were 3/5 of a man - so much for legality! Furthermore, the Constitution does not say that only the people who are BORN are persons - I don't care what the debased interpretors say - they make it up as they go along.
Second, where in the Constitution does it give a justice the moral or legal authority to say the unborn AT ANY STAGE is not a person with rights? Hmm? Nowhere! In fact, what do the founders mean when they refer to rights for their "posterity"? Gee, could that mean "yet unborn children"? And where in the constitution does it talk about a "right to privacy"? I don't see it! It doesn't take a legal genius to read the Constitution!
If you're looking for the spiritual definition of human person, I'll defer to soemone else to address that for you ... people don't like my answers/opinions on spirit; I suppose that's why XBob continues to ignore the many invitations to address that instead of the human soul.
The Supreme court definition is PURELY ARBITRARY and is based on nothing other than their ideology, not logic or unalienable human rights. I'm looking for a REAL LIFE definition, not a spiritual one. The being in the womb is alive and is real. I'm still waiting for you to tell me the difference between a human being and a person! Can you tell me? Can any of the reprobates in black robes tell me? No, and you and they never will be able to tell me simply because a human being is a person is a human being.
Methinks that the Supreme Court and all pro-abortion nazis are moral midgets who are unable to defend their position on logical, moral and ethical grounds.
Good thinkin'.