“Which is incorrect, as WE keep repeating.”
We understand that you keep repeating this, but you have never put forth an
argument for why this would be true despite the fact that one can not, legally speaking, murder an entity that is not even a person. Perhaps you think that because a forced abortion would require some sort of assault against the person carrying the fetus that this is somehow the legal equivalent of the fetus being legally protected, but we're not really sure
what you're proposing since your replies are brief, opinionated, and unsupported. You also continue to focus only on this one facet of the problem, involving legal protections, and completely sidestep the other problems we initially addressed, which you dismissed out of hand, also without consideration or argument. We're not really sure what you're trying to accomplish, other than blindly defending a resolution which has flaws. Perhaps you think admission of imperfection would hinder its chances of passing, but that presupposes that people are not intelligent enough to see through what you're doing here, which, if they put any effort into researching the arguments surrounding this legislation, they almost certainly undoubtedly are.
But we won't allow our concerns to be pared down for the purpose of rendering them petty and nonsensical. The fact remains that this legislation has no
business defining personhood in the first place, that it is legally frivolous to do so, that its delineation of personhood is arbitrary, and that from this arbitrary delineation other problems, including, but not at all limited to a loss of legal protections for fetuses outside of the context of abortion (wherein the moral mandate of bodily autonomy impels abortion access). Perhaps it is polarization, but arguing these points with you has made it all the more clear to us just how outside of the scope of this legislation establishing the limits of personhood is. We are not as sure of our original decision to submit a vote for at this juncture.