Although I appreciate hearing more about the nuances of your position, and really, really appreciate that there are nuances, I still strongly believe that the personhood of something the size of a shrimp or smaller, which cannot live on its own, exists in potentiality. Whereas the personhood of the woman who is forced to carry that potential life to term already exists. To put the personhood of the fetus on equal footing with her is neither morally nor practically possible, in my book.
I am, at heart, a pragmatist. And practically speaking, abortion has always and will always exist. The ways to decrease the need for it have already been discussed, but I think it makes infinitely more sense to put energies in that direction than to make philosophical statements. And as I said in my OP, there are plenty of other examples in American law supporting putting one’s own body autonomy over the right to life of someone else (e.g. the Shimp case, where the man was not compelled to save the life of another by donating bone marrow).
In many, many instances those who want to deny the right to safe abortion (which is infinitely safer than pregnancy) are primarily concerned with keeping women in their lane and forcing them to fulfill the role that is seen by some as the only true one for women. It’s a backlash against moves towards equality, as evidenced by their complete lack of concern for women who are pursuing IVF — because those women want to be mothers.
