Actually, "the unborn clearly are not legal persons" is not completely true. The unborn do have some legal standing with regards to battery/murder in the US.
Not in the states where I live. :)
In any case, they have no right to enter contracts, vote, own property, nor rights of citizenship. So, they aren't legal persons. They might be something, and there might be laws governing how they are treated (just as there are laws for the treatment of animals) but they sure don't seem like legal people to me.
But then we are back to what makes a person a legal person, aren't we?
You're continuously missing the point though by getting sidetracked. Personhood is derived from our inherent humanity, not from laws.
Go back and reread what Ironman wrote and your response. He said "It's impossible for them to believe the child is LEGALLY a person."
And then you went of track and asked him
"Interesting - so now the question is why do you have that opinion? I think most libertarians would disagree with you, in that it's reasonable to be 100% in favor of individual liberty, and to also have an opinion recognizing that the unborn count as individuals capable of liberty. "
When saying most libertarians would disagree with him, you edited out the LEGALLY, which he not only wrote but typed in all caps!
Note that Ironman wrote in response:
Now in the second paragraph you have gone to a completely different topic. There you are asking my opinion about it. I'll tell you what I think, but that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
And I wrote:
Well, now you are changing terms.
Do you mean to ask about a "...makes you believe that the child cannot be a person"? Or "...makes you believe that the child are not legal person"?
Not that when challenging what ironman actually said, you the you switched "are not" to "cannot be" and dropped the "legal". These are important changes.
My pointing out that you changed the subject isn't derailing or missing your point. It's pointing out you changed the subject-- and did so in a by mischaracterizing what Ironman said.
If you want to talk about the inherent humanity of people, fine. But stop putting words in peoples mouths. Stop complaining that people are getting sidetracked when they happen to notice you are mistating people's points.
Inherent humanity "ie, natural law", is (or should be where it fails to be) the basis for all legal statute.
Well, actually, this claim is an opinion and a rather silly one. Lots of people don't think natural law either is, or should be, the basis for all legal statue. What's natural law say about the speed limit? That cars can't go faster than the speed of light?
Maybe we're finally getting somewhere, not sure. So, you acknowledge that personhood to some extent can exist prior to birth, given a time of sufficient development?
Uhmmm... Ironman's post says nothing about diagnosing "personhood" and does not acknowledge "personhood" prior to birth!