> When should the government be able to force you at gunpoint/threat of imprisonment to carry a fetus for 9 months?
If you get to the point where you're asking "when", you're already saying the government should be able to force you to carry a fetus. I'm not sure how else to interpret it.
If it helps I guess you can twist my formulation to be "the government should be able to force you to carry a fetus under some circumstances that are evaluated by people on a case-by-case basis". All that "under" and beyond stuff is redundant, however.
As soon as we say that a case requires evaluation we apply force. We coerce the person by threatening them with imprisonment if they don't stop seeking an abortion. Further, we open the door to imprisoning people in a system that is already slow and burdensome; we then give people in government power to wait 9 months for the question to become moot.
> A binary response leads only to argumentation because we can't find the edges that we agree on, only the boundary we fight over.
The debate is not nor has it ever been over circumstances or conditions -- that is a distraction from the pro-life crowd.
For example, some propose exceptions for cases of rape. But can rape be proven in less than 9 months, including appeals? Obviously not. If an allegation or mere statement that a rape occurred is enough then we might as well not issue the threat.
Others propose exceptions if the pregnancy threatens the pregnant person, which just means that some cases will be decided by the government, ultimately.
The boundary is well-defined and fixed. You may just be uncomfortable with it, and that's your choice.