Placing laws on public spaces, such as roads, for the sake of public health, like preventing motor accidents, is not only a perfectly justifiable action but also isn't infringing on any rights to begin with. Driving isn't a right, nor is drinking alcohol, and doing both is definitely not a right; furthermore, you are perfectly free to drink and drive on your own property, it is only illegal to do so on public roads, since it is the public space is what is being regulated, not you yourself.
Bodily autonomy does not fall under this same vein because your own body is not for public use. The only person who has a say over what can happen to your own body is you, and no other person has the right to your body without your constant consent. That's why no person, even a baby, has any right or say over the decision-making of your own body's medical decisions, even if it means they die.
As for poverty, yes, I think that we absolutely should improve and guarantee access to things like education, healthcare, social services, etc. for all people, pregnant or not. And if people still choose to get abortions, even if they do have the guaranteed access to any resources they might need, then that is still their right to do so.
Ultimately, the potential or supposed life of the fetus is completely irrelevant as to whether or not the mother has the right to bodily autonomy. Even if it was a grown adult person attached to your body to live, you would still have every right to sever that connection, killing them, because they simply do not have a right to use your body if you don't want them to.
I would argue that the comparison to public spaces like roads may not be as distinct as you presented. Consider this: laws on public spaces like roads are there not only to protect individuals but also others who may be affected by one's actions. Similarly, the pro-life argument is that laws around abortion are there to protect not only the mother but also the potential life of the fetus.
Also, I would like to challenge the idea that the life of the fetus is completely irrelevant. For some, the fetus represents a potential life that has inherent value, regardless of its dependency or… Read more
@VulcanMan6 7mos7MO
The only thing that anti-abortion laws protect is the right for another person, the fetus, to use the mother's body without her consent, which not only completely violates the bodily autonomy of the mother, but also protects a right that the fetus simply does not have to begin with. No one, not even a baby, has the right to use another person's body without their consent; as such, there is no right that the fetus has to protect in the first place. The fetus does not have the right to use the mother's body, even if it will die without her, so protecting a right that does not eve… Read more