Pants-of-dog wrote:Choice, when discussing abortion, means having the choice of what to do with one’s own body. It is impossible to separate the two.
It seems to me you are conflating the two.
I was trying to create a hypothetical example (or a thought experiment) that would separate the two.
If not completely, then as much as possible.
Pants-of-dog wrote:In the same way, reproductive rights are a subset of bodily rights.
How do you reckon that?
First, it is easy enough to concede (for the time being here, temporarily just for the sake of argument, to help make things simple) that doing something to a part of her
body messes with her bodily rights.
But what about the aspects (theoretical as they may be) of her reproduction that are not a part of her body?
I mean, would you argue for example that if the father has joint custody of the baby, it infringes on her reproductive rights because she can't breastfeed the baby?
Is that the extent to which you would take this?
Let's not fall into making the automatic assumption that just because something is taking place geographically inside her body, that it is a part of her body.
(Pregnancy is a kind of unusual situation in that regard)
(Which I don't think you are making)
Pants-of-dog wrote:It is impossible to separate these two in reality.
It may be impossible to separate them in reality, but my hypothetical (thought experiment) was to demonstrate a point.
Which would then allow us to make a logical deduction.
Something doesn't actually have to be possible in reality to be relevant in a logical argument. Think about all the insights Einstein had through his "thought experiments" like what would happen if you could ride on a ray of light what you would see.