[sjostrom7]

Disagree. You can turn up the personhood all the way and still, in a scenario where a child was dying and needed a kidney and their parent was the only available match, the parent could not be legally forced to donate it. Why? They own their body and can't be forced to put themselves through bodily harm to help someone else.

You seem to be saying that "personhood" should be the deciding factor of abortion rights, but "personhood" is never going to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Bodily autonomy can and should be.

[MockObject]

I’m not sure the kidney analogy holds. Kidney donation refusal seems like an act of omission; whereas the active steps to abort a fetus are acts of commission. These are too distinct in ethical discussions.

Bodily autonomy is usually clear in most instances, but it might be overridden by personhood, so it doesn’t help resolve the debate to everybody’s satisfaction.

[adastra22]

Great job. Now take it the other extreme: is it okay to kill a baby that had already been born, but was still attached by the umbilical cord? It’s still, technically, part of the mother’s body at that point.

[sjostrom7]

That's kind of silly. The easiest way to free the one frees the other.

We all just want to go about our lives within being forced by law to sacrifice our rights to our bodies.