I have my position, but I can’t find any reasonable way to conclude that it’s ironclad “correct”.
Is bodily autonomy a right that extends to all people including females from about 12 to 50 years old?
Bodily autonomy is so deeply held that we cannot even harvest life-saving organs for donation from the dead if they dictate it shall not be done.
Abortion is the only exception we make as a society. We even pass laws preventing birth control from being paid for with group health insurance policies.
Anti-abortion positions have never been about fetuses; they are about limiting the rights of women.
When you restrict access to choose, you are granting greater agency to corpses than living women. Ask the right questions.
Even with that agreement, I don’t see how our views are rooted in some fundamental truth that precludes someone from arguing the opposing point of view (or arguing that the cutoff from one conclusion to the other is at a different number of weeks; I do not believe abortion should be generally legal at 39 weeks, nor at 38 weeks, ...)
Lots of people follow their conviction; travel far away to hurt others and deminish their and others humanity, that might be to help someone but in the end it's not ethical. Recently there was an discussion about the quote from Aristotle¹ that can be shorten to "virtues are actions, not words", but that leads to misinterpretations. Same with this quote from Tutu, you can not take it out of context and make it out as neutral to the ethics.
No, that’s precisely what I’m disagreeing with. The point is that it is possible to think your position is correct, and your opponent thinks their position is correct, but you are correct and they are incorrect. Why can’t a “rule” take that into account? Any notion of justice clearly has to take this into account already!