Can’t disagree with that. One thing to point out is the underlying philosophical discussion of what makes anyone “alive” — cogito ergo sum need not apply.
What is defined as life is different from a person having consciousness and being sentient. Comparing a human to a jelly fish, paramecium, or even a single cell amoeba is difficult. They are false equivalents.
Likewise, judging a fetus based on the textbook characteristics of life (organic and capacity for growth, movement, and reproduction) would equally be improper as a fetus may lack certain reproductive qualities. Not to mention, a human is an advanced, multi-system lifeform.
All-in-all brain function comes down to the ability to think and/or feel & express pain, but I agree it is difficult to pinpoint the exact moment such a time exists.
That said, morality guides us. Morality is the unwritten law that you can say, “that isn’t right to do” despite its legality. Some people have the empathy for killing a harmless insect or torturing a frog, but lack any emotion for an abortion — why?
As stated, what is immoral may not be illegal and it is the law of the land which we live by. Thus, there must be a point in the future where a fetus is protected under the Constitution. Currently, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, protects the right of children, but not those unborn.
The lack of fetus rights is a hole in the Constitution. While maybe not all rights should apply to a person that isn’t able to live by its own, I think there has to be some extension of the right of life to a human being (born or unborn), that does not threaten the life of another (or determined by law to be deserving of death).
As a society, we should be looking at ways to preserve life, not destroy it. As well as preventing those cases where a person feels an optional abortion necessary.