But what happens in a society where we argue that ALL humans have the unalienable right to life? That is why the abortion apologists for the most part refused to grant the “human life” part of the argument, and now are refusing to grant “personhood” to that life. As science and medical technology allow us to keep babies alive who are born earlier and earlier, the abortioneers can’t argue that a fetus of 24 or 26 or 28 weeks isn’t “human life.” Hence, the new twist of arguing about “personhood.” Which somehow points us to something like a soul, which will take them down a path they don’t want to travel, but they haven’t figured that out yet.
Ultimately, they must make the admission Pelosi made: we just don’t care; some lives aren’t worth protecting, i.e., those that interfere with our ability to do whatever we want to do. Getting the abortioneers on record as acknowledging the humanness of the life they want to abort, but reckoning it to be less valuable than a woman’s convenience, is a big step in the fight. Most reasonable people will be repelled by the blatant selfishness of such an assertion.
I may not have stated my point well.
The issue is one of the point at which we as a society choose to assign personhood, value and rights to a human life.
I don’t personally know of any pro-aborts who claimed a fetus isn’t alive or that it isn’t human. They said it wasn’t a person under the law, which is absolutely correct. (As the law now stands.)