BUT YOU HAVE YET TO DEMONSTRATE the very foundation of your assertion, namely that the legislation defines ANYTHING, much less that it “allows” killing of the “persons” that it’s defined.
Can you show me where in this legislation (1) ANYTHING is defined, and where or how it (2) “Allows the killing” of those defined as Persons?
Further, can you explain to me how YOUR ENTIRE POSITION on this matter does not “turn on” those two objectively verifiable issues, and why you should not be expected to offer SOMETHING in terms of documentation to back up those two, so far, absolutely baseless assertions?
Also, I would really love to hear your explanation of how a law that makes some abortions illegal, doesn’t prevent any abortions.
There are others. You can check the “heartbeat” bills like the one pushed in Ohio. They’re pretty much the same. They define the child in the womb as a person, and then allow certain disfavored classes of those persons to be killed by the abortionists.
The usual definition they use is: “”Unborn child” or “fetus” means an individual organism of the species homo-sapiens, from fertilization until live birth.”
At this point, I have to ask you, would a “law” that allowed the murder of paraplegics, based on the fact that they wouldn’t feel a thing, be moral or constitutional?
Do you think it would be okay to kill Grandma if you gave her enough morphine? After all, she wouldn’t feel any pain, right?
If you say NO, that wouldn’t be moral or constitutional, please explain to me the difference between the child in utero and the paraplegic or elderly person. Be specific.