"It's my body, I'll do with it what I want. That includes abortion."
"It's my body, I'll do with it what I want. That includes not wearing a mask."
The problem is the need to actually gain agreement on what life is. Most of the time we scream, shout, and when the other side doesn't give in just delete them and say they're not really fully people. In a democracy, 50% + 1 (or a good court-based oligarchy) wins--there *are* no minority rights that the majority doesn't want to extend.
A second is agreement on who should benefit--who's more important in a society? Is it the individual, 100.000% of the time? Society all of the time? Some of the time?
Because it extends to vaccinations. We can quibble that being made to comply with something hung on your body isn't really the same as deciding what gets done in your body. But forced vaccinations or disfellowshipment from society (with all the other obligations still in place) seems like pure hypocrisy when advocated by pro-choice folk.
I can put together the following arguments.
If you do not get vaccinated, you might incur additional risk to others. You are at greater risk of contracting the disease and spread it (to me); you may contract the disease and overburden the system, so that if I need those facilities they're unnecessarily occupied; you may do neither of those two things, but will still cost the health care system money and resources that I have to pay part of, and that gives me authority over your body.
If you do not get an abortion, you might incur additional risk to others. As a single mother, your child will run increased risk of low educational outcome or higher risk of crime; you will raise the poverty level for your economic unit, incurring costs to society, while simultaneously lowering your opportunities to advance. Either way, you increase the risk and expense of society that I am part of.
I don't like any of my arguments. On the other hand, I find that thinking with emotions is a really sucky way of doing things. Thought is thought, emotion is emotion, and while they have to get together and parley having one walk the plank before it even gets to open its mouth is hardly "reasoned" or "intelligent". When I make an emotion-based arbitrary cut-off, I like to be explicit about it; then when others disagree, we can discuss it (when the others are willing to admit that they, too, have an arbitrary emotion-based cut-off instead of "this is God's very truth" or "how dare you defy the sacred Arc of History and the truth of the holy side that is right." The idea of a secular religion is far from new. Or even just 20th century.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
