Yeah but if it's a person then it's not about bodily autonomy because the abortion denies the baby bodily autonomy.
At that point it's about what we owe other people.
Who is “we” in this statement?
I also don’t appreciate that you are arguing on behalf of a group you are clearly in agreement with yet your phrasing avoids committing to the stance. You present yourself like you’re just giving them due consideration but you only give that side your consideration and the benefit of the doubt.
The state will however happily violate bodily autonomy to achieve much lesser goals, like putting needles in you for blood tests or to literally kill you.
Keeping another person alive is arguably one of the most worthy goals there is.
> That's somewhat analogous to pregnancy.
The comparison goes in the right direction, but it's not quite there. Your examples are all about inaction, while terminating pregnancy generally requires action.
Be that as it may, it does not and cannot force you to donate your organs or blood, even as a condition of incarceration.
> The comparison goes in the right direction, but it's not quite there. Your examples are all about inaction, while terminating pregnancy generally requires action.
Not quite true. If you were hooked up to a blood transfusion machine, you'd have to unhook yourself. Maybe a better scenario would be a dialysis machine that connected one human to another human's kidney.
Like the state cannot hook you up to a blood transfusion machine (or whatever), plug you into some guy who needs your blood, and then keep you there. And you cannot be prosecuted for murder for denying a life-saving blood transfusion to some guy who needs your blood. That's somewhat analogous to pregnancy.