I am not arguing that an abortion vote does not force something on others. Of course it does. I am arguing so do all sorts of votes. You may vote for someone that impacts my taxes. That forces something on me.
At least you in agreement with what I have stated in several other posts. The subject of when a fetus is considered a human being is matter of religion and faith not science and for that reason is impossible to debate rationally.
You were arguing "every vote" did. That is obviously false, as I pointed out. Are there other votes that force beliefs on others? Yes. So then the question becomes about the basis of the belief and how reasonable it is to be able to force that belief on others. In this country, heavily religious beliefs (especially when those beliefs are not consistently held across religions) are supposed to be some of the ones we are most reluctant to force on others.
It's not a strong argument, though. It's a ubiquitous standard argument, which fails under a multitude of circumstances.
I don't feel this is the correct argument either. There are various interpretations of what constitutes a life and some of the scientific interpretations do not support your argument. The argument, imo, should be that the gov should have no business in determining women's/families' reproductive healthcare rights. You might argue that it's not a matter of terminating a life, but that's not the argument. There are circumstances under which terminating a life are deemed legally/logically/morally acceptable (some will argue the moral component and that's fine). Consider war, perpetual coma, and the death penalty. Although there are arguments for & against, many of those who deem it unacceptable to terminate a fetus also deem it acceptable to terminate the life of a wartime adversary, a person perpetually on life support, or a person sentenced to execution. Therein lies one of the problematic hypocrisies. It's a highly complex issue which cannot call for a simple solution (i.e. "abortion should be illegal" or even "abortion up to xx weeks of pregnancy" should be illegal). Those are arbitrary criteria which fail to account for the litany of complexities involved. Don't get drug into the mud, though, on what constitutes a living human. It's not the argument.
It is not uncommon when a woman who is pregnant is murdered or killed for the perpetrator of that crime to be charged with two homicides. I’d say the state is treating a “fetus” as a person in that instance would you not?
Good point and illustrates why I suggest the fetus/life is not the proper argument for reproductive healthcare rights.
Indeed. But this is back to the core of the argument. I may even agree that a pregnant lady killed is actually two murders. But that is a step beyond the whole concept of a lady and her pregnancy.
Just to play devils advocate here, so if the mother decides to abort the fetus/baby it’s not murder but if someone else does it is. That’s hard to reconcile logically to me.
I would be open to debate. A woman who wants that baby, yeah, I could go with that. But again, that is beyond the original concept. I am not against babies, I used to be one after all. Some might say I haven’t made a lot of progress. I am also not against women who want to be mothers. My reasons are mine. Maybe you like them, maybe you don’t. I am against The State telling women what is what. Also, The State telling me my reasons are unacceptable. Not for that.
If by saying US, you are speaking federally, then I think you are incorrect. Under federal law, harming an unborn child (in utero) during the commission of certain other crimes carries the same penalty as if you had committed the crime directly against the mother—and is charged as a separate offense. This law is embodied in Title 18 U.S.C. 1841 (Unborn Victims of Violence Act). Protection of Unborn Children | 18 U.S. Code § 1841). If you are only speaking from the tax aspect, then you are correct.
You can certainly argue there is an inconsistency. But ultimately murder is what we define it to be. There are many forms of killing that aren’t murder. There is a key difference in your example - in one scenario a third party kills the fetus, against the will of the mother, the other, the mother ends the life of the fetus, as it is tied to her bodily autonomy.
