>A fetus is not a person,

It is a person. This is why we are talking past each other on most of these posts.

>for the vast majority of the time they lack any organs at all.

This is just not true. Please tell me when the brain and heart form. It is well before the halfway point.

Also, some people are born without organs or without properly functioning organs. Some people lose their organs later in life. They are still persons, at least I think they are.

>However even if we do take a position of a fetus being a person, no one has the right to force anyone to undertake any medical procedure for anyone else's benefit.

I wouldn't call it a medical procedure but a natural process that is medicalized (is that a word?). In 99% of abortions the woman chose to take the action whose sole biological purpose is pregnancy so this isn't really a forced medical procedure in those case.

If you are not willing to risk getting a speeding ticket don't speed. You can't kill the police officer giving you a speeding ticket to get out of the consequences of your actions. The speeding ticket requires you to lose property rights to pay the ticket. Nobody denies this, but when it comes to pregnancy people take the opposite position. If you are not willing to risk getting pregnant don't have sex. You can't kill the baby just like you can't kill the police officer. You lose your property rights (paying fine) just like you temporarily lose the ability to do a certain action (abortion). It is no different.

>We can perhaps make this easier to grasp if we go to post-birth.

>Let's say a baby is born with kidney failure. Can the government force the mother or father to donate their kidney? If not, why not? Current law says no, the parent cannot be forced into surgery, but your above definition seems to make the parents murderers?

It is not the same situation since letting somebody die is not the same as deliberately hiring somebody to killing them.

I can make an analogy that isn't really related as well.

After a baby has been born parents should be allowed to starve the baby since the parents have property rights. They should not be forced to pay for food for the baby. Current law says you can't do that.

>We know of cases where people have additional children solely to get organs for earlier children, and currently we recognize that those children have rights so they can say no. But maybe you disagree with that? after all, them saying no kills the earlier child.

I am not a fan of this. Having a kids to deliberately harvest organs is wrong, but like I said above, I don't think the situation is the same.

I would say that the prochoice side should be in favor of having this legal. If a mother can do a medical procedure that will kill their child in the womb why can't they do a medical procedure on the child outside the womb? Especially since neither of the medical procedures are medically necessary for the baby.

>The question is "can the government force someone to undertake medical procedures", currently (at least prior to the GOP corruption of the Supreme Court) the answer is no.

This is just not true. The state government can force you to get vaccinated. Maybe you oppose that, but it has been precedent for over 100 years (Jacobson v. Massachusetts).

The federal government can also draft you (a violation of bodily autonomy) then force you to get vaccines since you are in the military. Also, this happens only to men, so it is similar to pregnancy only happening to women.

All levels of the government can arrest you which removes your bodily autonomy.

Bodily autonomy is not 100% just like any other right. There are situations where you do not get to have that right.

I am not going to address the rest of your post since it is all the same. I have just showed you that the government can currently and has forced medical procedures on individuals and removed bodily autonomy and nobody cares.