The law doesn't deny it, either. However something occured to me regarding your misinterpretation of 1 USC s 8. Section (c) actually states that it is not meant to deny any legal status or right to any member of the species Homo Sapien prior to being born alive. That actually means 2 things: (1) being born alive is not "legally" a requirement of being considered a member of the species homo sapien; and (2) that the law does not deny any legal status or right to any member of the species homo sapien prior to being born alive.
You need to read for comprehension.
You do not have a right to assume that a human embryo is a "member" of the species Homo s. sapiens.
And where is that law that says PERSON, or Human Being (as described in 1 USC s 8) is only those that have been BORN ALIVE?
Stick with me.....we're making progress, sorta....
Mac, the issue is not that the Constitution says the unborn are not persons. The issue is that is does not say the unborn ARE persons AND it clearly implies they are not persons.
The Census passage in Article 1, Section 2, says the Census has to count all persons in the US, including debt servants, but not Native Americans who don't pay taxes. There were both male and female debt servants at all times while indentured servitude existed.
Because the definition of persons was started but incomplete, we have warrant to see who was counted in the 1790 Census: householders, free white men (2 categories by age), free white women, other free persons, black slaves. The other free persons differ from the earlier ones for men and women only by not specifying color and so include black and Native American (tax-paying). The age distinction for men (16+above, below 16) uses a year-age marker, but it clearly began at birth, and pregnancy was known not to last a full year.
Thus, women were implies by Art 1 Sec 2, and had a category in the first Census. They were included in every Census.
In Art 1, Sec 2, there is no implication of the unborn. In the 1790 Census, the men's age distinction implies that men are counted from birth because of the year-age distinction. In the 19th and 20th centuries, Census Acts proposed several changes to counting, e.g., including everyone's place of birth and date of birth, ending the slave category, etc., but they never listed the unborn.
The Roe court had only 7 justices agree to the majority opinion, but all 9 concurred that at no time did the Constitution or legal cases decided on its basis recognize the unborn per se as persons. In the closest case, the unborn had rights of inheritance conditional on their being born alive, i.e., if they were born after their father died but were his, they had a right to inherit equally with his other kids, but had to be born alive to qualify.
So give up this attempt to say they could be persons. The unborn can only be persons if the people who want that manage to pass a Fetal Personhood Amendment. So far, no state has done so when a vote has been floated for it.