So long as the fetus requires the woman's body to survive, let alone come to term, it absolutely has to do with the woman's body. The fetus can also kill the woman whose body it's inhabiting.
Not considering the woman's point of view is treating her as if she's nothing more than an incubator, which comes back to "enslaving or murdering women".
And flushing her body of a fetus (or an embryo) is absolutely an action a woman may take upon her own body.
Re:No, America is not collapsing
by AnimalMuppet on Tuesday May 10, 2022 @03:48PM
(#31331738)
It has to do with the woman's body. But it is not only about the woman's body - the fetus exists also. The problem with the "woman's body" rhetoric is that it deliberately ignores the question of the fetus.
Just as the the pro-life stance ignores the question of the woman. There are the rights of two beings in play here, requiring compromise… something that is nowhere to be found in these discussions.
Compromise is made harder by three things, one is the parasitical relationship that only disadvantages a woman (who doesn’t want a child), the second is that a woman’s body flushing a fetus is a natural occurrence, and third is that occasionally the removal of the fetus, dead or alive, is medically required for the woman to survive.
The bans on abortions being proposed are not compromises.
When someone brings out the "her own body" line, they're begging the question about the fetus. It's a dishonest rhetorical device. We aren't going to solve this by yelling dishonest rhetoric at each other; that hasn't worked for 50 years. We have to actually address the real question.