A recent piece by Virginia Armstrong, Ph.D. of the Eagle Forum spells out the frightening and illogical implications of redefining personhood:
A "terrible trio" of U. S. Supreme Court decisions has spawned and energized the ongoing judicial attack on "personhood" as a constitution/cultural concept and on society as an institution. This trio includes the two basic pro-abortion decisions, Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania (1992), and the pro-evolutionist censorship decision in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). This trio of cases excises from our constitutional and cultural vocabulary the definition of "person" foundational to American society.
Webster makes the meaning of "person" clear: a "person" is "a human being, a man, woman, or child," "a human being, as distinguished from an animal or thing" (Webster, 2001, emphasis added). But the judges' pro-abortion, pro-evolutionistic exclusivism (recognizing as valid only the theory of evolutionism and its innumerable corollaries to the exclusion of creationist theory and its corollaries) have destroyed Webster's definition of "person."
The Roe Court was blatant in its denial of "personhood" -- "[the evidence we have examined] persuades us that the word 'person,' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." "Personhood" under this standard depends totally on the residence of the living being. No unborn child -- a baby still in its mother's body -- is a "person." But what if that child still residing inside his/her mother's body were conceived eight months and thirty days ago, while another child conceived eight months and twenty-nine days ago has "been born" -- has exited the mother's body and now resides outside the mother? The younger child is a "person," while the older one is not. This position is surpassed in its absurdity only by its deadliness."
Click here for the whole article from Eagle Forum