Expel a human even if it kills the human? That's a tougher sell. And that's always been the problem. Yell as much as you want about "a woman's right to her own body", but there's something there besides her body, something that is 1) still genetically human, 2) genetically different from the mother, and 3) will die if expelled by the methods used. It's not just the woman's body.
I think of it in terms of the Declaration of Independence: "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Well here, "life" is at war with "liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in a way where, whichever one wins, the other has to lose.
EDIT: What part of this is getting downvotes? I'm honestly curious for a distinction here.
No offense, seriously, but the analogy seems simplistic to the point where it needs some kind of complete rework to produce an interesting question.
The utility answer resolves some of the tension, but it doesn't address what happens when an animal might have more utility than a human. What about protecting endangered rhinos versus viable fetuses with severe but nonterminal developmental issues?
Not really a rhetorical question, by the way, the Down's Syndrome population is way down and not because we cured Down's Syndrome.
The use of the word "force" is the key word here. Who is doing the forcing? Who should be making the decisions about what happens to the body?
That's the autonomy question.
I'd rightly point out that pacifists don't tend to like people getting hurt, and battery hurts people. You could turn this into a bodily autonomy question and point out that we violate autonomy with seatbelts so why not violate the autonomy of the punched, but that would be missing my point. Pacifists aren't all about bodily autonomy, they're concerned about not hurting people.
Similarly, I'm saying here that vegans should be against forced continuation of pregnancy, regardless of who's doing the forcing or who has control of your bodily autonomy. Vegans are against egg farming regardless of who the farmer is. Who gets to make decisions about the chicken is a different question than whether this particular decision should be allowed.
Note that I'm not making an argument for or against abortion. I'm only pointing out that being pro-choice seems to be more in line with vegan ethics than being anti-choice. I don't think vegan ethics are based on bodily autonomy arguments, so it's weird you that you keep bringing it up. Vegans aren't primarily concerned about bodily autonomy. Their concern is about not hurting animals. Humans are animals too, so vegans shouldn't want women to be hurt regardless of how the government works.
All plants derive from dirt, an animal product of worms.
Does this means vegans ought to starve?
Lots of people have an abortion and then later have children. Their motivation is not to avoid damage but to delay becoming a parent for financial reasons.
I think it takes a particularly skilled mental gymnast to have an abortion for financial reasons and then turn around to say we shouldn't eat honey because we're exploiting the bees.
That is to say, I'm far more sympathetic to an argument from a vegan who also happens to be pro life, as that seems to me like the more consistent position: pro human and pro animal life.
>Lots of people have an abortion and then later have children.
Later? The majority of women who have abortions are already mothers. [1]
"I don't eat meat or abort fetuses, but I don't want laws or norms saying we can't either." There's no serious ban in meat being discussed.
Raise it yourself or put it up for adoption are the first two options that come to mind if the resulting child is the problem.
C-section or risk popping it out the normal hole are the obvious alternatives if medical complications are the problem.
Personally I don't have a problem with abortion but if you want alternatives then there you are.
What are the alternatives to abortion if the problem is not the child existing but the birthing process?
1. C-section.
2. Do nothing and let the thing come out the existing hole knowing full well that one of the side effects may be death of the mother, infant or both.
In this day and age the latter really isn't an option that's seriously on the table but back in the day abortions/c-sections weren't really a thing or were more risky and you couldn't tell in advance if there would be complications so that risk was just accepted.
Edit: FWIW I am pro-choice (since apparently we can't have a discussion about alternatives to abortion without assuming other people's opinions on the issues).
There's countless situations where I could judge someone's behavior as a thing they should never do, even though I'm not in their shoes, but this isn't one of them. If a mother wants to abort, that's just on her! Maybe the suffering of the fetus is tragic, but it's all her choice and I can't really judge her because I'm not her. I accept I can't prevent every bad or possibly bad outcome and end all suffering.
Edit: I appreciate dialog on the specifics of these things. I think people just... assume that because they're all on the same "side" they come to the same beliefs and conclusions from the same reasoning (or that everyone around them has a reasoning to begin with) and that can end up causing huge problems.
Also, abortions weren't really a thing? Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure it's only recently[1] that abortions were distinctly not a thing.
What interesting thing about a honey bee or fish deserves protection that isn't true of a fairly young human fetus? And, likewise, what's true of a young fetus that does not apply to a pig or octopus on the pro-life side?
There are clearly religious answers to some of the paradox on all sides of things, but I'm sure not all of us find them convincing.
EDIT: There is probably a more acute detachment/skin-in-the-game distinction to be made in this case, if we can suspend our politics for a moment, which might be asking a lot these days, perhaps.