These things are all statements of facts that I said to Dancova. That you don't like me pointing them out for some reason doesn't make it hostile to tell the truth. You said yourself that he some problematic views - but if I point those out, then suddenly I'm the problem? Puhleez....

Why are you still on about viability? It's something that absolutely nobody else is talking or even thinking about when having this discussion. And FYI, a doctor doesn't make laws about at what stage the rights of the developing fetus supersede the body autonomy of the mother. That was something that was laid out in Roe - and something that was never a point of contention for anyone - except you. Stop trying to bring it into the equation - it's extraneous and irrelevant to the larger discussion.

I stand by my contention that the only "reasonable" thing is to give pregnant women the same body autonomy rights that are afforded to all other Americans in any other circumstance. You cannot be forced to give blood or bone marrow or a kidney to somebody - even if it is the only thing that would save their life - even if they are an infant. You cannot harvest organs from a dead body without prior written authorization from the person - even if it is the only thing that would save a life. As long as you are mentally competent, you have the right to refuse medical treatment or intervention if you don't agree with it for some reason. That is what body autonomy means and there is a huge amount of case law and precedent around that beginning in the 1970s and moving forward. In the face of that, anyone who believes that they have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my body (within the confines of the balance that was codified in Roe) can fuck off. That is the only reasonable thing to say.