Should we have stronger separation of church and state?

[ColdHardTruth]

Laws banning abortion are secular law.

That’s nothing to do with theocracy

Nonsense.

Those laws were created based on religious beliefs about the procedure.

They are not secular.

 

[Gordy327]

Laws banning abortion are secular law.

That’s nothing to do with theocracy

Legally, the unborn are not legal persons nor have rights. So what is the legal reason to ban or restrict abortion?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Nonsense.

Those laws were created based on religious beliefs about the procedure.

They are not secular.

That is irrelevant. it's a secular law and applies equally to all regardless of religion and mandates no religious practice

 

[Gordy327]

That is irrelevant. it's a secular law and applies equally to all regardless of religion and mandates no religious practice

If the law is not based on or influenced by religion, then you should be able to provide a rational and legal reason to ban or restrict abortion?

 

[volitleaire]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

In America we have the freedom to choose our own faith. A country like France has freedom from religious iconography. Freedom of religion in the US was created with different denominations of Christians in mind.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

What countries? Iran? China has complete separation of church and state, in fact, they have no church. Americans are mostly christian, so it only makes since that we have many christian politicians and values.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

I think any policy proposed should be able to hold water outside of any religious value system. If someone says we should ban gay marriage, it would only make since if you agree with the idea that marriage is a religious institution (and that being gay is a sin).

To go back to your public school example, public schools can teach about religions (so long as they don’t prescribe what religion you should be), and teachers should be able to display crosses, stars of David, or the islamic crescent. Religion in public schools crosses the line when students are forced to participate in prayer, bible study, or other religious practices. I think there was a case where a football coach came under fire for leading his athletes in prayer.

As a personal anecdote: at the high school I went to, the football players were mostly christian, and one of them would typically lead the team in prayer before a game. I think this is fine, as it’s the students deciding to pray, and no one is forced to participate.

 

[volitleaire]

If the law is not based on or influenced by religion, then you should be able to provide a rational and legal reason to ban or restrict abortion?

Pretty much every moral system (secular or not) considers needless death bad. If you consider that at some point a fetus becomes a living person, there is a point at which abortion involves the death of a human being. This may be partial-birth abortion, it may be a week before birth.

 

[Gordy327]

Pretty much every moral system (secular or not) considers needless death bad. If you consider that at some point a fetus becomes a living person, there is a point at which abortion involves the death of a human being. This may be partial-birth abortion, it may be a week before birth.

Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated. The fetus is a legal person at birth. Before then, it is not considered a person nor has rights.

 

[volitleaire]

Morality is subjective and cannot be legislated.

Morality is objective. We may not have proven objective moral truths, but they exist. Values such as “innocence” “guilt” and “justice” are universal across all cultures. The only thing that is subjective is our perception of the world, there is an absolutely true form of everything.

You may experience water as wet, cold, hot, or otherwise. That does not mean that water is any of those things. Water can be defined objectively by its particles and their properties.

The fetus is a legal person at birth. Before then, it is not considered a person nor has rights.

A fetus is fully formed weeks before it is born. It’s brain is in a state akin to sleep or coma. You may not consider it a person, but half the country does.

 

[MamboDervish]

As a personal anecdote: at the high school I went to, the football players were mostly christian, and one of them would typically lead the team in prayer before a game. I think this is fine, as it’s the students deciding to pray, and no one is forced to participate.

There is peer pressure - especially in high school. I'm sure not one student or athlete would be comfortable walking out, or carrying on a conversation, or listening to their headphones when someone else in the room is openly praying.

It simply shouldn't be done.

 

[Gordy327]

Morality is objective. We may not have proven objective moral truths, but they exist.

What is the source of objective morality then?

Values such as “innocence” “guilt” and “justice” are universal across all cultures.

That doesn't mean they're viewed or applied the same across cultures. They can very between cultures.

You may experience water as wet, cold, hot, or otherwise. That does not mean that water is any of those things. Water can be defined objectively by its particles and their properties.

Not a great analogy. Water is a physical form. Morality is a social construct.

A fetus is fully formed weeks before it is born. It’s brain is in a state akin to sleep or coma. You may not consider it a person, but half the country does.

Irrelevant. The law, federal and state, does not consider a fetus a person. Neither is there any way to grant personhood without restricting the rights and autonomy of the pregnant woman who is a person.

 

[blueskies2018]

I have always been shocked how unbothered most people seem by the many blatant references to Christianity in government. "In God We Trust". Public schools unashamedly displaying crosses/religious quotes/prayers.

We already have stronger separation of church and state than many countries do. But I still feel that we allow Christianity to influence our government in a way we let no other religion and aren't truly a secular state.

Note; please don't argue about the legality of what IS allowed now. I'd like to argue about what you think SHOULD be allowed.

I am all for taking the language out of anything in the government in terms of having “in god we trust” written on things and taking crosses out of school etc. That being said, people should still have the right to religious freedom and I strongly protect that. There needs to be a respect given both ways that I don’t see happening and I find it really concerning.

Back to religion, the only area I’m not sure about is with elected officials being stopped from using it for a few reasons. Firstly, either side you line up on, you probably want to know if you are voting for some religious person or not and how would you know if that wasn’t voiced. The reason it’s important to know is because generally someone’s religion is going to affect how they vote on certain topics. Also, it will affect whether a voter sees them as “trustworthy” or if they are “kooky”. The issue of separation of church and state can really only go so far. I’ve heard from some non-religious people that separation of state should even mean that a voter doesn’t think about their religion when they vote but that’s never going to happen for a religious person. To them religion is an intricate part of their life and their vote is going to reflect that no matter what anyone else says they should do. I was raised catholic (not religious now) but I can remember talks given by the priest in church about how what you voted on HAD to be thought of from a moral standpoint first. I know this will probably make people mad but isn’t that technically what we all do? Look at the issues and decide what is morally right in our minds? So for that part I don’t think can be changed no matter what someone wants.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Yes. The government should have no say over churches, and not tax them unless they take part in politics.

Then you tax them retroactively back to when they started that shit.

 

[volitleaire]

There is peer pressure - especially in high school. I'm sure not one student or athlete would be comfortable walking out, or carrying on a conversation, or listening to their headphones when someone else in the room is openly praying.

It simply shouldn't be done.

So are you in favor of the state placing restrictions on acts of faith? The students have a right to pray when and where they want. If someone feels uncomfortable with prayer, they have no obligation to participate or stick around.

Christians have said the same thing, that christian students feel uncomfortable praying around non-religious students. No one is forcing anyone to do anything, it’s up to the individual to have enough backbone to act on their own values.

 

[volitleaire]

What is the source of objective morality then?

Fact and logic. We can objectively say that infringing on someone’s right to life is objectively immoral.

That doesn't mean they're viewed or applied the same across cultures. They can very between cultures.

You’re absolutely right. But the fact that such ideas exist universally supports the idea that they are objectively moral.

Not a great analogy. Water is a physical form. Morality is a social construct.

Right, the analogy was more to show the difference between objective and subjective.

The idea that morality is a construct, and therefore subjective is not coherent. Math is arguably a social construct, yet we’d both agree that there are objectively true mathematical propositions. I am arguing that starting from self-evident axioms, we can construct an objectively true system of morality. The only way to disagree with the system would be to disagree with the axioms.

Irrelevant. The law, federal and state, does not consider a fetus a person.

Alabama legislature might disagree

Neither is there any way to grant personhood without restricting the rights and autonomy of the pregnant woman who is a person.

Yes, this is true in many cases. Being a christian teacher at a public school means that you sacrifice the right to proselytize while at your job. Being in the military means you sacrifice many of your constitutional rights.

Whether or not a fetus has rights is not a question of autonomy or rights. Slave owners argued granting Black slaves rights would infringe on the slaveowner’s right to own property. The fundamental question is when a fetus gains protective rights. I’d argue that there is little to no difference between at fetus at birth and a fetus a week before birth. Because that fetus has little to no material difference, I’d argue it should be treated the same as a born infant.

To bring this back onto the thread’s topic, the greater point here is that policies must have a secular argument to hold water. Arguing abortion should be banned because of religious belief (which isn’t usually the argument) is unconstitutional.

 

[brianpatrick]

Imagine...you are at a school where there is school prayer. Time is allotted for individuals to start their school day with a personal request for calm, peace, love, support, for a better school day. Everyone is free to pray or to meditate or to peacefully collect their own thoughts...and out af 2378 students in that school, 17 of them are sitting seeting smashing themselves in the ***** muttering I hate them...I hate this...I HATE you people....**** you **** you **** youuuuu!!!! Look what you are doing to me!!! BLLLARRRAGGHHHH!!!!!

Now tell me...who has the problem?

Religious people are delusional thinking their kids are doing ANY of this. In fact, I don’t believe any of them actually even believe this is what their kids are doing in school. It’s all political nonsense.

 

[The Mark]

A reference to God (some power higher than government?) isn’t establishing a religion. You seem to be interpreting “In God We Trust” to (really?) mean “In Christ We Trust”.

Taken to the extreme, which some appear to favor, there are no ‘inalienable rights’ (enumerated or not), we the people simply have certain privileges allowed (conditionally granted?) by the (federal?) government.

My personal opinion is that a key purpose of the US constitution is to recognize and protect certain rights.
The exact source of those rights isn't needed - so long as we (more specifically congress?) decide something needs to be protected and recognized as one, it can be.

 

[ttwtt78640]

My personal opinion is that a key purpose of the US constitution is to recognize and protect certain rights.
The exact source of those rights isn't needed - so long as we (more specifically congress?) decide something needs to be protected and recognized as one, it can be.

That (bolded above) implies (means?) that congress can override the constitution.

 

[Gordy327]

Fact and logic. We can objectively say that infringing on someone’s right to life is objectively immoral.

Where is this "right to life" enumerated? The unborn do not have rights.

You’re absolutely right. But the fact that such ideas exist universally supports the idea that they are objectively moral.

No, they exist. But because morals vary across different cultures and societies shows they are subjective. You haven't provided the source of objective morality.

Right, the analogy was more to show the difference between objective and subjective. The idea that morality is a construct, and therefore subjective is not coherent. Math is arguably a social construct, yet we’d both agree that there are objectively true mathematical propositions. I am arguing that starting from self-evident axioms, we can construct an objectively true system of morality. The only way to disagree with the system would be to disagree with the axioms.

Morality is a social construct. But as different societies hold different moral ideas or standards show morality to be subjective.

Alabama legislature might disagree

Even Alabama hasn't granted or recognized full personhood to the unborn. Unborn personhood in Alabama only applies within the context of abortion. And yet, a woman may still have an abortion without repercussions.

Whether or not a fetus has rights is not a question of autonomy or rights.

Yes, t is. A fetus cannot be given rights without infringing on the rights of the pregnant woman.

The fundamental question is when a fetus gains protective rights.

At birth.

I’d argue that there is little to no difference between at fetus at birth and a fetus a week before birth. Because that fetus has little to no material difference, I’d argue it should be treated the same as a born infant.

Go ahead and make the argument then.

To bring this back onto the thread’s topic, the greater point here is that policies must have a secular argument to hold water. Arguing abortion should be banned because of religious belief (which isn’t usually the argument) is unconstitutional.

I agree laws and policies should be secular. Many arguments against abortion are based on religion. I have yet to see a rational and legal reason to restrict abortion.

 

[The Mark]

That (bolded above) implies (means?) that congress can override the constitution.

Yes, that's part of their purpose - amending the constitution if needed.

It requires a 2/3rds majority in both the house and the senate to propose an amendment, and that amendment has to be ratified by at least 3/4ths of the states before it becomes part of the constitution.
Alternatively, the state legislatures of 2/3rds of the states can propose it.

So, in theory, it is possible for the constitution to be amended without congress.
Historically, that has not happened, because as soon as something becomes popular enough where ratification is possible, congress has passed an amendment.

Constitutional Amendment Process | National Archives

www.archives.gov

 

[volitleaire]

Where is this "right to life" enumerated? The unborn do not have rights.

Do you seriously think there isn’t a right to life? The 14th amendment clearly states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

No, they exist. But because morals vary across different cultures and societies shows they are subjective.

All you show is that people haven’t agreed upon an objective morality. People have also disagreed on mathematics, doesn’t make math any less objective.

You haven't provided the source of objective morality.

I have, facts and logic. We can build coherent systems of morality through looking at the material world logically. The discrepancies come from what axioms we assume to be true.

Morality is a social construct. But as different societies hold different moral ideas or standards show morality to be subjective.

Color is a social construct. There’s no reason for a wavelength of light to be “blue” instead of “red”. This does not make the “blueness” of that wavelength less blue.

Even Alabama hasn't granted or recognized full personhood to the unborn. Unborn personhood in Alabama only applies within the context of abortion. And yet, a woman may still have an abortion without repercussions.

Factually untrue, many states have started to grant personhood to fetuses. While I disagree with granting 1st or 2nd trimester fetuses personhood, there is a case to be made for 3rd trimester fetuses.

Yes, t is. A fetus cannot be given rights without infringing on the rights of the pregnant woman.

And slaves can’t be given rights without infringing on the right of their owner. This isn’t a good argument. If your right to an abortion infringes on a person’s right to life, you shouldn’t have the right to that abortion.

At birth.

Why? What difference is there between a baby one hour before birth and one hour after?

Go ahead and make the argument then.

Human gestation typically takes 9 months. A baby that is a week premature can survive outside the womb. They are material identical to a baby born a week later.

I agree laws and policies should be secular. Many arguments against abortion are based on religion. I have yet to see a rational and legal reason to restrict abortion.

You’re seeing one now. The state has an interest in its citizens well-being. Therefore, the state must weigh the rights of a mother and the rights of a fetus to decide abortion laws. At one month of pregnancy, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, and therefore does not have a right to life. A month before birth, that same fetus has the ability to survive externally, therefore they deserve legal protection.

There are true theorems that are unprovable, objective morality may be one such theorem. This does not mean that theorem does not exist. You’re argument against abortion is illogical, you have arbitrarily decided that birth is when a person becomes a person. People don’t remember anything from their first year of life, so maybe infants under a year old aren’t people either? The right to life is dependent on the ability of the person to be alive.

 

[MamboDervish]

So are you in favor of the state placing restrictions on acts of faith?

NO! That isn't what I said.

The students have a right to pray when and where they want.

The right to pray alone to one's self can never be prevented, nor should anyone want to. Why would they? But for a teacher or coach to gather students or athletes together to pray all but forces participation by the rest of the class or team. Moreover, at the very least, it forces said students or athletes to remain still and silent while said prayer is going on, lest that young person be branded disrespectful of someone else's religion. As someone who well remembers being subjected to both in school, I know what I'm talking about.

If someone feels uncomfortable with prayer, they have no obligation to participate or stick around.

Except for the peer pressure I mentioned, which you seem intent on deliberately sidestepping.

Christians have said the same thing, that christian students feel uncomfortable praying around non-religious students. No one is forcing anyone to do anything, it’s up to the individual to have enough backbone to act on their own values.

Bullshit. Students from grammar, right through high schools, are under strong peer pressure to belong - especially on a team where unity is paramount. If religious people feel the need to pray, and they have every right to, then the appropriate way to handle this is for them to announce that they will be meeting for a prayer, either later or in some adjoining room, and have the respect of others in the locker room to not subject or involve them in their rituals.

 

[Gordy327]

Do you seriously think there isn’t a right to life?

Specify where the "right to life" is enumerated please!

The 14th amendment clearly states "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.

Key word in there is "PERSON." The unborn are not persons. But the 14th Amendment can be used as 1 possible basis against abortion restrictions, as the unborn are not persons but the pregnant woman is.

All you show is that people haven’t agreed upon an objective morality. People have also disagreed on mathematics, doesn’t make math any less objective.

If it's not agreed, then it's not objective. Objective morality would require a solid basis establishing the framework of morality. Morality would then be black and white. Instead, morality has quite a lot of "gray" areas.

I have, facts and logic.

Only in your mind.

Color is a social construct. There’s no reason for a wavelength of light to be “blue” instead of “red”. This does not make the “blueness” of that wavelength less blue.

Color is a description of a specific wavelength and frequency of light on the electromagnetic spectrum. It's science, not social

Factually untrue, many states have started to grant personhood to fetuses.

Some have tried. None have established fetal personhood.

While I disagree with granting 1st or 2nd trimester fetuses personhood, there is a case to be made for 3rd trimester fetuses.

Make your case then!

And slaves can’t be given rights without infringing on the right of their owner. This isn’t a good argument. If your right to an abortion infringes on a person’s right to life, you shouldn’t have the right to that abortion.

Slaves were considered property. The owners didn't lose rights. They only lost property. Besides, slavery has been a settled issued for many years now. Trying to compare abortion rights to slavery is desperate at best.

Why? What difference is there between a baby one hour before birth and one hour after?

Birth!

Human gestation typically takes 9 months. A baby that is a week premature can survive outside the womb. They are material identical to a baby born a week later.

Until it's actually outside the womb, it's not a person.

You’re seeing one now. The state has an interest in its citizens well-being. Therefore, the state must weigh the rights of a mother and the rights of a fetus to decide abortion laws.

The only citizen that's paramount is the pregnant woman. Restricting abortion potentially threatens her well being. The unborn are not persons with rights so there is no protection or "interest." States claiming "interest" is just empty political rhetoric to appeal to the voting constituency.

At one month of pregnancy, the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, and therefore does not have a right to life. A month before birth, that same fetus has the ability to survive externally, therefore they deserve legal protection.

In either case, the fetus is still attached to and feeding off the woman's bodily resources. Legally speaking, no one can be compelled to have their body used to support another without consent.

There are true theorems that are unprovable, objective morality may be one such theorem. This does not mean that theorem does not exist. You’re argument against abortion is illogical, you have arbitrarily decided that birth is when a person becomes a person. People don’t remember anything from their first year of life, so maybe infants under a year old aren’t people either? The right to life is dependent on the ability of the person to be alive.

I have decided nothing. My argument is entirely based on rational and legal reasoning, backed by actual law and legal precedent. You have yet to provide any such argument.

 

[volitleaire]

Specify where the "right to life" is enumerated please!

I did, the 14th amendment

Key word in there is "PERSON." The unborn are not persons. But the 14th Amendment can be used as 1 possible basis against abortion restrictions, as the unborn are not persons but the pregnant woman is.

You are asserting that a fetus is not a person, but do not back this claim argumentatively besides “brith"

If it's not agreed, then it's not objective. Objective morality would require a solid basis establishing the framework of morality. Morality would then be black and white. Instead, morality has quite a lot of "gray" areas.

There is no grey area within objective morality, that’s the point.

Only in your mind.

My mind is an emergent property of physical phenomena.

Color is a description of a specific wavelength and frequency of light on the electromagnetic spectrum. It's science, not social

Color is the description of our perception of light, not the underlying physical phenomenon. We don’t see an apple and say “That light reflecting off that apple has a length of 660 nm”, we say “the apple is red”.

Some have tried. None have established fetal personhood.

Georgia has a new law that establishes an embryo as a person once cardiac activity is detected

Make your case then!

I have been

Slaves were considered property. The owners didn't lose rights.

They lost the right to own slaves as property.

They only lost property.

Slaves were not considered “persons”, when they were recognized as legal persons slave owners lost the right to own them

Besides, slavery has been a settled issued for many years now. Trying to compare abortion rights to slavery is desperate at best.

I demonstrated that if your rights infringe on another person’s you should not have that right

Birth!

What is the material difference between a born infant and a 8 1/2 month-old fetus

Until it's actually outside the womb, it's not a person.

Right, that’s what you keep saying without arguing it. You are asserting this idea as though it’s an absolute fact. It is not, as shown by the Dobbs ruling

The only citizen that's paramount is the pregnant woman.

If we assume you are correct, sure. I’m disagreeing with the assumption you make that a fetus cannot be considered a person

Restricting abortion potentially threatens her well being.

Not necessarily, most abortions happen to protect the way of life of the mother, not the mother’s life. You do not have a right to not be a mother

The unborn are not persons with rights so there is no protection or "interest."

You’ve asserted this, yes. Now back up the claim an unborn fetus cannot be considered a human person

States claiming "interest" is just empty political rhetoric to appeal to the voting constituency.

States have always held interest in the well-being of their citizens.

In either case, the fetus is still attached to and feeding off the woman's bodily resources.

A 8 and a half month old fetus can be separated from its mother and survive. Why should we destroy the fetus instead of allowing it to live?

Legally speaking, no one can be compelled to have their body used to support another without consent.

Legally speaking, no one is forced to become pregnant. When a woman has consensual sex, they are consenting to the possibility of becoming pregnant. I’m arguing that at a certain point in that pregnancy (around 20 weeks), a fetus has a brain that is as developed as a newborn

I have decided nothing. My argument is entirely based on rational and legal reasoning, backed by actual law and legal precedent. You have yet to provide any such argument.

I’m not appealing to legality, I’m appealing to scientific reasoning

 

[volitleaire]

NO! That isn't what I said.

Maybe I misunderstood.

The right to pray alone to one's self can never be prevented, nor should anyone want to. Why would they?

Ok

But for a teacher or coach to gather students or athletes together to pray all but forces participation by the rest of the class or team.

In my anecdote it wasn’t teachers or coaches, it was students doing it of their own initiative.

Moreover, at the very least, it forces said students or athletes to remain still and silent while said prayer is going on, lest that young person be branded disrespectful of someone else's religion.

Being respectful is bad?

As someone who well remembers being subjected to both in school, I know what I'm talking about.

Sorry you had to shut up for 5 minutes while people observe their faith

Except for the peer pressure I mentioned, which you seem intent on deliberately sidestepping.

I didn’t side step, I said feeling like you have to do something is not the same as being forced to do something.

Bullshit. Students from grammar, right through high schools, are under strong peer pressure to belong - especially on a team where unity is paramount. If religious people feel the need to pray, and they have every right to, then the appropriate way to handle this is for them to announce that they will be meeting for a prayer, either later or in some adjoining room, and have the respect of others in the locker room to not subject or involve them in their rituals.

In America, we have the freedom to be religious. This means others necessarily have to deal with being exposed to prayer. There is no detriment to being around someone praying to win a football game, you make it sound like they’re sacrificing ewes or something.

 

[Gordy327]

I did, the 14th amendment

Applies to persons.

You are asserting that a fetus is not a person, but do not back this claim argumentatively besides “brith"

Person:

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c)Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

There is no grey area within objective morality, that’s the point.

Meanwhile, moral grey areas exist. Ergo, morality is subjective.

My mind is an emergent property of physical phenomena.

Yes, and it has you thinking you're correct.

Color is the description of our perception of light, not the underlying physical phenomenon. We don’t see an apple and say “That light reflecting off that apple has a length of 660 nm”, we say “the apple is red”.

Color is determined by wavelength in the visible light spectrum of the electromagnetic spectrum. Red light has a longer wavelength than blue light. We just assign "colors."

Georgia has a new law that establishes an embryo as a person once cardiac activity is detected

Such laws only apply in the context of abortion. Fetal personhood is still not recognized by the federal government. Neither can a woman in Georgia or any other state be prohibited or prosecuted for having an abortion.

I have been

Not very well.

They lost the right to own slaves as property.

No, slaves were simply not considered property anymore.

Slaves were not considered “persons”, when they were recognized as legal persons slave owners lost the right to own them

Technically, they were considered 3/5 person. The unborn is 0/5 person.

I demonstrated that if your rights infringe on another person’s you should not have that right

Restricting abortion infringes on the pregnant woman's rights and autonomy.

What is the material difference between a born infant and a 8 1/2 month-old fetus

Birth. I already explained this. Why do you keep asking the same question?

Right, that’s what you keep saying without arguing it. You are asserting this idea as though it’s an absolute fact. It is not, as shown by the Dobbs ruling

See second statement.

If we assume you are correct, sure. I’m disagreeing with the assumption you make that a fetus cannot be considered a person

See second statement.

Not necessarily, most abortions happen to protect the way of life of the mother, not the mother’s life. You do not have a right to not be a mother

And a woman has the right to not want to be a mother too.

You’ve asserted this, yes. Now back up the claim an unborn fetus cannot be considered a human person

See second statement.

States have always held interest in the well-being of their citizens.

Unborn are not yet citizens. Also already explained.