Actually, I am not under that impression. What I am saying is that the definition of "person" is a legal one that can be created by legislation or the courts. In the absence of legislation, the Alabama Supreme Court had to make that determination for the state. There is no "default" interpretation.

In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court recognized that unborn babies were "human" but denied them "person" status till they were viable. With the recent decision by the Supreme Court, "person" status for unborn babies and the rights conferred on those "persons" will be determined by state legislative bodies or state courts (as the default option).

My point was "personhood" may or may not have any relationship to "human" and human rights. A corporation is a person and as such has all the rights of "personhood", but corporations are not human and so not accrue "human rights" just because they are a "person".

If the citizens of Alabama vote for a different definition of person, than that decided by the Alabama Supreme Court, then I would presume the legislative definition would take precedence over the judicial "default" determination.

I don't agree with the Alabama's Supreme Court decision, but I do believe in process. It does trouble me that states' legislatures have taken so long to pass legislation whatever that legislation turns out to be. I also think Congress is a bunch of cowards and should pass a law so that citizens in every state have the same rights.

While I would personally be against abortions of healthy unborn babies, I expect and would support an abortion law that limited elective abortions up to 10 weeks and with special exceptions up to 15 weeks. I don't like the idea, but it is one that I think most Americans could accept.