So is using spermicidal lube considered killing children?

A ball of cells and flesh that cannot survive outside of another human does not and should not have human rights. Otherwise we gotta start considering the human rights of cancerous growths.

As far as many of us are concerned, fetuses do not have human status, so the argument is absolutely irrelevant for most as a comparison.

A fetus is by definition a human. In fact it is the third stage of human development. This is why people argue against personhood. The claim is you can be a human fetus but not have personhood yet.

Do unborn children occasionally pop out of women's bodies, enter other people's bodies, and reproduce uncontrollably to a point where they stop those other people from breathing?

If so, we can apply the same logic to coronavirus and pregnancy. If not, you're just drawing a false parallel.

"The needs of society can override the individual's right to bodily self-determination". This is the thesis you need to tear down. Whence goes the vaccine, so goes abortion.

>Whence goes the vaccine, so goes abortion.

We've had mandatory vaccinations for over a century, certainly since Roe V. Wade, and yet abortion is still legal.

Half the US believes abortion is murder and a sin against God and yet as far as I know, never has anyone tried to use the existence of vaccination laws as a pretext for making abortion illegal. That wouldn't even make sense.

The point is the comparison between the life of others vs the "right to bodily self-determination".