There’s no real conflict of rights, unless you believe that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. That “future person” has no more rights to a woman’s uterus than I do as an adult to my mother’s blood & organs if I get into a car accident.
Notably, this is my exact conclusion-- but my point isn’t that a pregnant person should not be allowed to have a choice-- only that the argument could be logically made that the rights of the zygote are more important. A parent has to feed and care for their kids, even if they want to abandon them to go spend a week in vegas. We make judgement on whose rights matter more all the time, and abortion/choice is no different.
My point was that it doesn’t help anyone to dismiss that there is a judgement to be made. You and I have both obviously made judgments that the pregnant person’s right to bodily autonomy is of greater importance, but that doesn’t mean that this is objectively true, or that the zygote doesn’t have rights or should be considered a person for legal purposes.
No I get it, you’re playing devil’s advocate in 1,000 words, but it’s all for naught. That’s all it comes down to - if someone is “pro life”, their opinion is that people should be forced by the government to be live organ donors. And yes, their opinion can then absolutely be dismissed out of hand, because it is irrational and does not respect the rights of the human they are forcing into organ donor slavery.
I’m not even here to debate the personhood status of a fetus, an embryo, a zygote, etc… No human (or potential human) has the right to take blood and tissue from another human by government force.
I’m not playing devil’s advocate. I’m pointing out that this is not an objective truth-- that whether or not pregnant people should have (safe) access to abortions is up to society, and thus it is best for those of us who believe that society is better off when there is safe access to abortion (which the data supports!) should make an effort to convince those people that disagree.
This topic has a lot of parallels to the debate on capital punishment. Much of the support for capital punishment is based on incorrect assumptions, bad information, and feelings. Luckily, people seem easier to sway away from capital punishment, but it would be infinitely more difficult if the arguments for capital punishment were just laughed at or ignored.
Does this apply to vaccines? There are many (many) people in this thread that tell me that no one has to get vaccinated, they can just live in the woods on a mountain-- but I can’t help but wonder who enforces this, if not the government. (I do think people should be required to get vaccinated, btw-- but I also think “my body, my choice” is a weak argument.)
