The question there is _which_woman_? The one going to get the procedure or the one on the sharp end of needle? So the question one might ask you is "from whose perspective is murder trivial?"
Neither seem trivial to me, which is probably why it's such a contentious issue.
Framing it like you do seems mostly just to dehumanize the other side.
I'm probably with you in how we should treat this, but I also worry about the slippery slope problem - at what point is it no longer ok to abort? If six months, then why not six months and a day? Then why not a moment before birth? Then why not after birth? What is the magical moment where we say the "clump of cells" becomes "human"? Trying to answer that question feels like it unavoidably treads into religious grounds even for the non-religious.
Your questions are moot because functionally no one is at the end of a needle. No woman or doctor is going around willy nilly getting their jollies off killing viable fetuses.
> What is the magical moment where we say the "clump of cells" becomes "human"?
When that human is outside of another human. Until then, women and doctors should have ZERO risk of being held liable for decisions about saving the pregnant woman’s life that may have to be made in seconds in a rapidly changing medical situation.
It is a complete non issue (that is until the Repubs started banning women’s healthcare) burning untold resources of our nation’s political time and money.
>The question there is _which_woman_? The one going to get the procedure or the one on the sharp end of needle? So the question one might ask you is "from whose perspective is murder trivial?" Neither seem trivial to me, which is probably why it's such a contentious issue. Framing it like you do seems mostly just to dehumanize the other side.
In what world is this a coherent argument that people should look past these ideological divides in their relationships? You know, the actual disagreement at hand?