Many believe, myself included, that women should have the right to control their own bodies, and access to abortions is part of that right. You don't leave rights up to the states. Rights are supposed to be guaranteed at all levels of government.
I can see how, if you are absolutely convinced that the unborn human is a human just the same as anyone walking on the street, you'd mirror the argument you made and say, you don't leave it up to the states to protect the lives of the unborn humans, and ban abortions.
I'm not taking a side here btw. I feel like the pro-life vs. pro-choice argument is low on arguments targeting the opposite side, only more and more rallying its own supporters.
Its like being against slavery. You could say, what's that to anyone, if you're against slavery then dont own slaves but don't stop others. And yet it's reasonable to be against other people enslaving others.
Your comment suggests you think abortion is "obviously" ok and perhaps you'd agree that slavery is "obviously wrong and different". Perhaps because enslaved people are "obviously" humans with rights and fetuses are "obviously" not. I don't know of course but it seems like a reasonable guess.
But so long as the debate is about what people hold as obvious and naturally correct, all you get is more polarisation.
If you question whether or not a slave is a person, then I don't know what to tell you.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/steve-jobs-adoption-connecte...
It is the same argument used to justify any opinion without proof
[1] "Multiverse" vs. fine tuned universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
[2] "Choice" vs. responsibility: https://trendguardian.medium.com/free-will-a-rich-fairy-tale...
Our minds can justify anything
[3] "Interpreter" mind: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31737462
You offered an opinion without proof, which is that Apple wouldn't exist. This is why these "debates" are so unproductive. Both sides have unfalsifiable positions.
Seems strange that most pro-abortion advocates would probably be in favor of tenants rights to protect them from being evicted from a rented house but are fine with a living human being lethally evicted from a womb as long as the “owner” says so.
In both cases there are two humans, both of which have rights and whose interests have to be balanced - I don’t think it’s helpful to pretend otherwise. One might also want to consider other situations where humans have decided other people are “not really” human in order to justify doing terrible things to them, including killing them. In every situation I can think of, that thinking was wrong - seems unlikely that abortion is an exception somehow.
Second, why start defining someone a human at conception? Isn’t birth control depriving a possible person of their rights too?
I won't argue with your belief, but please share your opinion (if you don't mind, of course) on this: whether a homicide of a woman and a homicide of a pregnant woman should receive the same punishment?