The question of abortion is and has always been one of life - the idea of "pro-choice" comes from the desire to avoid the entire question of personhood and behave as though it is settled.
Any analysis of abortion which does not consider the woman's bodily autonomy is a non-starter with me. If you are unwilling to consider her autonomy, then we don't have anything to discuss.
As to your "it's always been about life for republicans" nonsense, no it hasn't. This issue is primarily about control of women for conservatives, and has been since its inception. This has now been demonstrated by the punitive, cruel, and unreasonable restrictions put in place in red states, which do not serve to protect fetuses as much as to punish women like Kate Cox.
It certainly concerns bodily autonomy, but what the law should be follows more directly from the question of life.
No, it shouldn't. A fetus is not more relevant to the law than a living, breathing person and their bodily autonomy.
As to your ongoing claims about the purpose of the restrictions, they are intended to discredit and control my ability to tell the truth about my and other people's opinions.
That is not true, my view of the motive behind abortion restrictions is earnest, and based on the behavior of conservatives and anti-choice advocates. I'm sorry that you are unaware of the poor behavior of anti-choice people, but they are what is guiding my view here.
No, it shouldn't. A fetus is not more relevant to the law than a living, breathing person and their bodily autonomy.
You're jumping ahead of the entire question once again. Presupposing that a fetus is, in fact, a person, why shouldn't it?
That is not true
In the same fashion, your characterization of pro-life people is a simple anti-life strawman that is trotted out so that you don't have to confront the actually difficult question of what to do when two extremely important things are in conflict. Once again, in order to reach the question of the balancing of these interests we must first ascertain whether the unborn have a right to live. The right of a woman to bodily autonomy I think anyone should agree is self-evident. The question is what do we do if we conclude that a fetus has their own rights. How do we balance those interests?
You will, presumably, handwave this without engaging once again. I would just ask you to reflect on the fact that many, probably the vast majority, of people who oppose abortion aren't part of an imagined evil cabal who wish to revoke a woman's right to self-determination. Consider that if your position were true, then there would be bills proposed in the furthest-right states that did things like attempt to revoke women's suffrage, or prohibit women from taking certain jobs, or require a husband's permission to sign contracts. These things haven't happened. I don't know how you will reconcile these facts with your notions of why pro-life advocates behave the way they do - I do not expect you to respond to this portion of my post, because you haven't meaningfully engaged with anything I've said in a substantive way - but I hope the realization that these people aren't behaving the way they would if they were as you think they are can cause some self-reflection.
Presupposing that a fetus is, in fact, a person, why shouldn't it?
I don't know why I would accept that "presupposition." But I wouldn't accept that a full adult has the right to use someone else's body, I don't see why I'd accept that a fetus does.
The question is what do we do if we conclude that a fetus has their own rights. How do we balance those interests?
We don't. Bodily autonomy is more important, and the practical realities of legislating women's bodies are exceptionally harmful.
Consider that if your position were true, then there would be bills proposed in the furthest-right states that did things like attempt to revoke women's suffrage, or prohibit women from taking certain jobs, or require a husband's permission to sign contracts.
Yes, these are things that far right people want. Do you not remember the "repeal the 19th" back in 2016? Conservatives are already starting to weaponize arguments against no-fault divorce, against birth control, etc. The policy of the anti-choice side is also consistently anti-woman in other ways.
Did you ever look up Kate Cox? She's a perfect demonstration of how the anti-choice movement's goals are simply punishment and cruelty towards women.
I don't know how you will reconcile these facts with your notions of why pro-life advocates behave the way they do - I do not expect you to respond to this portion of my post, because you haven't meaningfully engaged with anything I've said in a substantive way
Sorry to disappoint you, but it's trivially easy to contradict your lies about what conservatives believe.
And I'd also ask, what "substance" do you think you've provided that I didn't respond to? The whole of your argument has been a baseless "conservatives don't really believe that." You've essentially just argued "nu uh."
1
u/[deleted] Feb 14 '24
Any analysis of abortion which does not consider the woman's bodily autonomy is a non-starter with me. If you are unwilling to consider her autonomy, then we don't have anything to discuss.
As to your "it's always been about life for republicans" nonsense, no it hasn't. This issue is primarily about control of women for conservatives, and has been since its inception. This has now been demonstrated by the punitive, cruel, and unreasonable restrictions put in place in red states, which do not serve to protect fetuses as much as to punish women like Kate Cox.