Glory be!  You seem to be on the right track for a change.  The DeYoung post isn't real clear however.  I don't think anyone thinks it should be ok to harm someone else's fetus.  Virginia's statute, for one, doesn't seem to say the fetus is a person though, but you are the self proclaimed legal expert.  I'm only reading it.

Here's another one that doesn't support what you are saying: Iowa provides penalties for the nonconsensual termination or serious injury to a human pregnancy.

This statement doesn't tell us much about the fetus nor does it say anything about what the penalties are.

"...lists laws in all fifty states that [sic] define a person to include the unborn."  I don't think so.

This blogger is probably proof texting and much worse.  He resorts to inference because he can't prove his point in a straightforward manner.

Another instance: North Carolina states that any person, who in the commission of a felony, causes injury to a woman, knowing the woman to be pregnant, in which injury results in the miscarriage or stillbirth by the woman is guilty of a felony that is one class higher than the felony committed.

The list does show that most states either by calling it murder or clearly stating it that the fetus has been historically considered to be a person (or was when these laws were legislated).  Feticide is somewhat ambiguous on the other hand.  Some might argue that there are numerous archaic laws on the books but the consistency amongst the states is notable.

What the blogger is showing is that a majority of states recognizes that a fetus is a person.  Since a law better indicates beliefs at the time it was legislated, opinion polls are a better indicator of current beliefs and how Roe and Doe may have influenced them.  The citizenry is split relatively evenly on this issue so it's unlikey that politicians want to change the statutes listed in the blog and risk not being reelected by drawing attention to their stance merely for a wording issue since there must be some sort of penalty for causing harm to a woman or fetus which the woman wishes to carry to normal delivery anyway.

The Supreme Court recognizes that a woman can choose to abort that fetus.  They never said it should be okay to cause harm other than by consensual abortion.  Though the decision in Roe discusses when the fetus is viable or quickens as the point when personhood is attained, the opinion writer in Doe probably doesn't care because quickening is moot if one may abort in any trimester.

The leap in logic by the blogger is that no one has proved that abortion is wrong according to the Bible (Roe mentions this obliquely).  The Bible only addresses an involuntary manslaughter situation where a miscarriage has been caused by two men who are striving with each other and implies that it's okay if inadvertent miscarriage is caused in a less contentious situation.  And, if Solomon would cut an actual baby in half because of no mother-love, then what might be okay in the case of an unloved fetus?

What the passage quoted by the blogger is saying is that the aborter and maybe the abortionist might know by their conscience what is right and it accuses or even excuses their behavior until they are judged on Judgment Day, but what it fails to tell us is whether abortion actually is sin. 

Furthermore, what this chapter really is about is judging others and hypocrisy.  Most importantly, like other passages, it does not tell the Roman Christians to do anything about the behavior of the Gentiles but rather to focus on one's own conscience.  God will sort it out on Judgment Day as in the parable about the wheat and the tares.  The second chapter of Romans goes beyond the inference of the blogger and actually condones the Supreme Court decision because it places responsiblity squarely on the aborter's conscience and tells believers not to worry about it because what we do when we judge is worse especially when we create new legalisms or traditions and raise them to Biblical authority on our own.  It's easy to condemn others who commit sins we are unlikely to commit.

This post is a red flag.  My concern is that by using a priori Bible interpretation, we miss out on hearing what God was trying to say to the original audience and by extension to today's readers.  A posteriori is a better, more sound approach which allows us to hear what God is saying to each of us instead of about someone else, ie an ear tickling.  I'm not judging but it is not surprising that you, MC, are confused again by your own loose interpretations of the Bible which further cheapen its profound message by proof texting and inference to your own detriment.  Your past comments have revealed a strong tendency along these lines numerous times.  Ultimately, the problem with judging is that when we do it, we are putting ourselves in the position of having to be perfect eventhough as Christ said, "only God is good." I am is but I am not and neither is anyone else.

btw, what happened to Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, and the nine others that didn't make the list?  Are you misrepresenting DeYoung?  He doesn't claim to list the "laws in all fifty states."  His list includes 37 and excludes the District of Columbia, too.  Isn't it funny that 37 is 2/3 of 50 which is the number of states required to amend the Constitution?  Too bad Puerto Rico, the Philippines and more portions of Mexico, predominantly Catholic, aren't states.  You really need to work on Puerto Rican statehood.

I haven't been to all of the above locales, but since I actually have crossed the state line of ten of them and I didn't need a passport or military id to gain entrace to any of them, I'm just guessing that  they might be states.  Ya' think?  I have been to Mexico and Canada without a passport, but I think that has changed since 9/11 so they probably aren't states, btw.

if I didn't know better, MC, I'd wonder if you were right about anything

Sadly, it's that uncommon wrongness that probably causes liberals and non-Christians to think we are idiots.

My bad.  The list doesn't show all fifty states. It's been corrected. Thanks C.

Honest mistake.