Yeah that's my point. I don't know why it's an odd complaint. "Men trying to control women's bodies" isn't true and turns an ethical debate into something about sexism, which means we don't get closer to an answer because we're not working on the right things.
> whatever we pick involves some kind of value judgment, right?
This only seems true because it is already the case that the answer affects our lives as human adults having to take action based on the answer in our particular cases. If we lived in some other universe where abortions were impossible (e.g. they always kill the mother for some reason), it seems like we wouldn't have that difficult enough of a time identifying when life begins in the fetus.
What's funny is that because the answer affects us and we won't drill down into narrower ranges to identify specific criteria, this also makes our understanding of all other life more ambiguous. Because if we did identify when frogs, or elephants, or seedlings turn from cells into life, it would have obvious implications for humans.
> first trimester abortions should be safe/legal/accessible" seems like a fine place to start, and go from there
It seems like this is exactly what Texas has done. It went from there.
Again: even in "pure" science, you are generally making value judgments when studying stuff like "what makes something a member of a species", "what counts as a life for the purposes of this study", etc. E.g. a scientist may use the biological, ecological, or evolutionary species concept to study a population of organisms, depending on what question they're trying to answer. There is no "objective" answer to what a species is; it depends on what question you're trying to study. Similarly there is no "objective" answer to when life begins; someone can pick "at conception" or "at first breath" or whatever, and then we have to have a value discussion about why that, why not something else? See also https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/21/the-categories-were-ma..., which argues well (in a different context) how this sort of thing works.
The Texas law is far more restrictive. Six weeks is much shorter than first trimester.
From an ethically perspective it would be significant if those expectations and obligations could be replaced with voluntary acts in an universal way.
Whether or not questions around abortion "disproportionally affect" women is not the question. Abortion also disproportionately affects aborted babies, if you believe they're alive. 1-year olds also disproportionally affect women. Should we be able to kill children until the age of 5? Why not?
I think your take from the perspective of categorization is one that tries to blur things intentionally. It may be the case that an organism does or does not "objectively" belong to a race. But that does not mean that the specific attributes of that organism are themselves not objectively measurable. You're just talking about what definitions are being used.
I think that argument is an attempt to derive ethics from words - rather than discovering the scientific process, deciding ethically what is appropriate or desirable, and identifying the language which should be used to describe it. It's backwards.
At some point a fetus goes from necessarily relying on the mother, to being self-sustaining (if fed) even if removed from the mother. That's a knowable thing. If the baby is removed it will either live or die and that is our answer. Call that life, or independence, or whatever. The lens you choose may change where the line is for you, but not when it is crossed.
I would say that if you believe that children should not be killed post-birth, then you are already cognizant of some kind of threshold that exists which is eventually crossed and cannot be undone, after which adults are obliged to attempt care and continued life of the child.
Because we don't have a way to test exactly when a fetus becomes independent, we use heuristics. For the most part, the first trimester we consider dependent; the last trimester we consider independent; in the ambiguous middle trimester we err on the side of the preference of the already-living, and in some places allow abortions through this time even though there may be a chance that the baby is alive and independent.
But these are just heuristics. "The Texas law is far more restrictive." Yes, it is. But you also said "Go from there" and that is what they did. Texas narrowed to a specific criteria that its people perceive to better approximate the threshold for life. "Life" being in this case a catch-all amalgamation of lots of peoples' concepts that mostly approximates the ability to self-sustain under care. It would seem on the surface at least that an organism without a heartbeat is dead-on-arrival while one with a heartbeat at least has a chance.
The way past this for a place like Texas is to propose a new testable threshold and explain why it is not possible for a self-sustaining baby to be exist before then.
I did not say the policy's disproportionate affect should be the sole consideration; I did say it's worth considering, because in practice the vast majority of ethical questions are not simple binaries; we have to weigh competing needs/desires/etc and decide what the best course based on all the factors at play.
My intention is not to "blur things intentionally" but to encourage thinking about this in a less black-and-white way, and explore some unexamined (arguably irrational!) assumptions that seemed present in your original post. For instance, you said:
> When does it go from cells to alive inside the mother?
...with the implication that answering this will give us a "rational" and correct answer to the ethical question. But there is nothing about <i>this framing itself</i> that is objective or rational. Knowing that a life <i>is</i> at some point (via whatever scientific definition we've chosen) doesn't tell us what <i>ought</i> be done about it; in general you can't derive an ought from an is; you could <i>easily</i> instead reframe the ethical question as "is there some point when a fetus's life is more important than the woman's bodily autonomy," and come up with a very different set of heuristics for answering the question. You can pick an objectively measurable line but the choice of what that line is, and what to do about it, are not a thing that can be objectively chosen.
My intended point wrt Texas is that, based on the discrepancy between polling data and the law as written, it seems like the representatives in Texas have passed a law that is in fact <i>more</i> restrictive than what the majority of voters want; ergo, I don't think it actually reflects the majority's intuitions on when abortion should be OK. But this really isn't my main point; I'm mainly trying to point out this isn't a question that can be solved solely by finding some science answer, and an attempt to sway voters solely on that type of argument seems not-correct based on everything we understand about how people in modern democracies make such decisions.
Assuming that a foetus is a child, why should the mother have a legal obligation to keep it in her body? If it existed outside her, but required a kidney transplant to live, would she also be legally obligated to give it one? As far as I am aware that procedure is at lot less dangerous/damaging to a womans body than a pregnancy.
I can't see a logical argument against abortion that doesn't require any person to give up a kidney that a stranger need.
A parent does have an obligation to feed and keep healthy a child that cannot care for itself. There is such a concept as criminal negligence. For example, parents have been charged with manslaughter after they provided an insufficient diet for their child. [0]
> why should the mother have a legal obligation to keep it in her body?
I'm not sure that she does. She could theoretically take it out and raise it outside of her, but that would be quite bizarre and greatly increases the risk of criminal negligence and improper care. Babies are forced out early all the time, when the doctors recommend it if the baby is late.
[0] https://www.news-journalonline.com/zz/news/20191121/vegan-fl...
So when does it start? When does it go from cells to alive inside the mother? No answer. Activists will shout "my body" all day but clearly there may be a second living entity that is not their body.
Nobody is willing to come propose a rational concept of when a baby's life begins. I suspect, these days, because it would result in a determination similar to Texas'.
Activists also say it's "men controlling women's bodies" but never acknowledge that half the voters are women.
I'm not even pro-life. But none of the pro-choice takes are in good faith. If you want to be perceived as rational and therefore be more convincing, (1) acknowledge that it is not a men-vs-women topic, and (2) propose a sane test for when life begins. Seems so bizarre that so many people supposedly believe in "science" but cannot figure out (2).