I don't disagree.

Debating what the law should be or even about what constitutes life and what constitutes "human" are all important issues and worthy of debate.

But when it comes to the law, I thought it was important people begin with understanding the difference between a "person" (a legal construct) and a human life (a biological definition).

My goal was to try to push people to demanding their elected representatives make clear when an unborn baby acquires if at all "personhood" rights. For more than 50 years, politicians have raised millions, potentially billions and failed to pass a law resolving the debate. That almost feels like fraud.

But the issue goes beyond abortion. The IVF case is interesting since in this instance, the issue is strictly whether the fertilized egg has "personhood" rights, since a woman's body is not involved.

How this issue is resolved, may impact further cases. For example, what if a surrogate changes her mind and decides she does not want to carry the baby. Can she opt for an abortion without the permission of the biological parents. Once we perfect the artificial womb or the ability to transplant an unborn baby to another womb will a woman be required to put their unborn baby up for adoption and allow it to be moved to an artificial womb or surrogate?

So, I agree with you the issue is far more complex at the moral and ethical level becoming more so as science advances. But when all is said and done, the law must account for every possibility and for now the law fails to do that.