Personhood for the unborn. What pro-lifer could be against such a thing. Well, I suppose that no pro-lifer is opposed to personhood in principle. Some oppose personhood as a strategy.

Personhood can never work, they say. At least not now. The better approach is incremental. Focus on the achievable. That might seem like good sense. Steve Ertelt of thinks this is the way to go.

In order to defeat Obama and ultimately stop abortions, personhood amendments must be put aside in 2012 so the pro-life community can focus on the number one goal: installing a pro-life president who will put the nation in a position to legally protect unborn children.

But Shaun Kenney, also at Redstate says, not so fast. Let’s look at what the “incremental and achievable” strategy has gotten us.

Arguments against are legion: it bleeds cash and resources, it’s not politically viable, and worst of all, it deprives Republicans the chance to elect a pro-life president with a nominally pro-life Congress.

Of course, were this even remotely true, abortion would have ended with the election of George W. Bush, and the Republican Congress would have passed a series of bills defunding Planned Parenthood, mandating parental notification and consent laws, passing a series of fetal pain bills, forcing abortion clinics to meet the basic standards of medical care, and perhaps even joined hands with the personhood movement and passed a bill recognizing the basic right to exist — ultimately thrusting the decision into the hands of a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court and ending abortion once and for all.

One small problem. This never happened.

Kenny then goes on to make the case for Personhood as a strategy.

I am torn in this debate having been in the Steve Ertelt camp for years, but increasingly I am drawn to the personhood movement, again as a strategy. I am truly on the fence.

This is a very important debate within the pro-life movement.

Please read both articles (here and here) and let me know what you think.