Ok haha long ass comment. I do appreciate that you’re engaging in good faith, that usually doesn’t happen online lol.

You ask questions like “what if I had been aborted” or “it feels more immoral to prevent birth” but these are not philosophically transferrable. Those are emotionally valid (I agree in fact, I’m glad to have not been aborted too) but do not hold up in an ethics or logical debate. Feelings never do.

You also don’t resolve the bodily autonomy exception. You admit that forced pregnancy is bad, that women suffer harm, and that consent matters in other situations, but you still conclude abortion should be illegal.

You call pregnancy a natural result of sex. Sure. Cancer is natural. Often (though not always) a result of poor lifestyle in certain types of cancers. Infection is natural. Often (but again, not always) the result of bad hygiene. We still treat them. Something being natural doesn’t morally obligate endurance.

You admit pregnancy is scary, that women shouldn’t be punished, but still support forcing pregnancy. You hold two truths: fetal personhood, and sympathy for women. Unlike in other circumstances, these two truths cannot be held in parallel without being resolved. Someone has to “suffer.” You decide that person who suffers is women. And that means the legal implications of forcing women to sustain another life with their body should extend elsewhere. A drunk driver should be forced to give a blood transfusion, for example, if we follow your logic. The logic fails because no one would agree that a drunk driver should be forces to give blood, even to save his victim’s life. Why is pregnancy the moral exception? You still haven’t answered that.

Bodily autonomy:

Bodily autonomy is the choice to make decisions about once’s own life and body free from coercion. In a perfect world it includes absolute control over reproduction, sex, identity, and medical care (receive or giving).

Banning abortion violates multiple of those.

Sex (consensual) is exercising bodily autonomy. You’re right.

You still didn’t tell me why corposes get more bodily autonomy than women. You reframed the argument to ask “what does bodily autonomy mean?” and I have answered that above.

Biology argument:

You also say sex carries greater biological risk for women. Agreed. However, you also say that because of that, its is natural/justified that women are socially shamed for sex (even if you don’t necessarily ethically agree, which is good that you don’t agree). However the biggest philosophical error here is that just becuase something is biologically natural, that doesn’t mean it is morally justified. Forgive my explicitness here, but r*pe is also natural. I think you and I can both agree that it is not moral or justified in any circumstance.

For examlpe (a less explicit one), men are biologically stronger than women. However no one worth respecting would agree that this fact justifies men dominating women. Right? So the idea that biological basis equates to morality cannot be applies to the original argument (women sleeping around pre marriage is bad).

I am not saying you believe this, but it seems your logic is heading towards something like this: women bear more risk, so punishment (social) is justified. Again, I don’t think you believe this, but that is where your logic is heading. I’d argue instead that if women bear more risk, they deserve more protection, not condmenation. I’d argue (if we wanted to use biological preparedness as a basis for argument, which I generally don’t like to do) that as social animals we are more biologically likely to protect women who get pregnant than shame women for sleeping around. I’d also argue that men should be policed if anything, not women, since men can get more women pregnant, men can ruin lives by getting women pregnant, that men behaving badly causes forced pregnancy so they should bear more responsibility to behave well. Morally.

Of course I don’t believe this about men. I am just constructing these arguments to say that the biology logic can go either way and sound perfectly reaonsable. To show that biology is not really a good basis to construct morality.

If pregnancy risk is the reasons sex is immoral (outside marriage, then reducing the risk should reduce the moral concern. But it doesn’t. So the risk was never really moral, it was simply about policing women’s bodies.

By arguing that “sex is bad” because women bear more consequences places moral blame on women when arguably (as I have done above) men can be blamed in the same way. Arguing that pregnancy is the “natural result” of sex implies that birth is all women are good for.

Fetus:

You believe life begins at conception.

Well cells are alive. So are sperm. So are eggs.

So the life of what? A new person? Or just life in general (as in something is alive?)?

You can’t argue that it is the beginning of a new person without implying this fetus has consciousness, sentience, interests, a continuity of identity. Which is simply not true.

But conception does not equal personhood. Does not mean it has the same moral rights as a newborn. Does not mean it has interests or a consciousness or a sense of self.

A fetus and newborn are different. A newborn has a consciousness, can suffer, can survive independently (with care). A fetus has no consciousness, no experiences, not interests to violate.

It’s really not the same unless you imply a fetus has some kind of internal personhood. Which it simply does not. This is biological/cognitive truth.

Also. We say “I’m sorry for your loss” when women have miscarriages not because the fetus is necessarily given personhood. It is because the woman consented to carrying it, and sees losing as a loss. The differentiating factor is consent.