From the previous thread:

re: #724 dangerman-call me sandy, not a drink named Steve

for me, that’s always been the core - the slope of the trajectory from a fertilized egg (or even before) to a born child is gradual with no discernible point at which personhood is identified, so when does a single discrete constitutionally protected life “begin”?

for the religious right, personhood got pushed further and further back to the beginning

for me there is no right to life. there is the right to a chance at life.

there is still a test / hurdle that must be passed - birth/delivery. and for the most part we don’t punish the caretakers if the hurdle is not crossed successfully

but make no mistake - this is the only time in the course of ‘a life’ where one must pass (through) a physical process or test to garner additional rights.
“turning” 18 or 21 is not the same as surviving the birthing process.

So *any* point at which a constitutionally protected human life/ person is defined is somewhat arbitrary because there is no dispassionate objective point. it ‘could be’ a fertilized egg. it ‘could be’ who has survived the birth process.

i see the right’s arguments as irrelevant. it’s a religious argument. not a scientific argument. Nor a legal one.
“personhood” is a legal argument. not a scientific argument. nor a religious one.

im fine with an agreed upon arbitrary legal place - as long as everybody recognizes that it is that, not some “religiously justified” legal place

If I were required to pin down personhood it would be this: When the body is able to breathe on its own. If it can function without having to be physically connected, then it’s far enough along. But, even then, the woman still has complete control of her body.