Ideally, it shouldn't matter if the fetus is identified as a person or not. I consider it a person, however undeveloped, but that is irrelevant to why abortions should be legal. It's unfortunate that law requires linguistic gymnastics to function.

Further, I think there is a way to argue for a new/separate definition of person. A corporation is a person, a government is a person. There are many definitions of person in the Oxford English Dictionary, which is only one source. A linguist would know that definition is experiential and subjective to an individual or collective, at least in English; therefore, there is endless room for even more "official" definitions of the word.

Basically, this is the general line of argument that may avoid prescribing fetuses as the same definition of "person" as an already born individual. One would need to articulate exactly what the difference is just like one articulates the difference between a corporation being a "person" and a human being a "person."

With that difference in mind, one cannot call the end of a corporation, however it may occur, 1st degree murder.

Hope this gives people some hope that things can turn out differently if we use the right methods.

People are so petty for those downvotes, lol. You owned up to it

He never claimed otherwise, shtinky