"Those pro-life militants, while they may bristle strongly at being called misogynist, nevertheless tend to reduce the mother in these arguments to a passive incubator, and give little if any time, thought, or concern to the personhood of the mother in their arguments, and it shows"
That may be true, but a mother has at least some rights guaranteed by society, and a fetus has none. What I keep hearing is that shifting the focus away from the people society already protects, at least in some measure, is inexcusable by dint of its unintentional harmful effects on those who would be forced to give up some rights.
I don't understand why this should be the case. Sometimes the government removes rights in order to protect other people. Driving while drunk (this is a horrible comparison, I am going to make several, and I apologize for not finding less contentious examples) is illegal because it endangers other people, and often kills innocents. If the government legislates to protect pedestrians, they impede upon the rights of everyone who drives. This is the way that protecting people's rights *works*.
We deny many people the right to practice their preferred sexual behaviors for what I think are legitimate reasons: rape and pedophilia are illegal, and they are infringements upon what we are characterizing as the "rights" of some people in order to protect others. Does this mean that our society is anti-pedophilia? I suppose by some measures it is. But requiring informed consent is a really really really good thing nonetheless.
If someone believes that there is an entire segment of the population whose rights are not protected, and that therefore bad things are happening to them, they may know *exactly* whose rights will have to be curtailed, and still consider that an acceptable trade. Does this kind of extreme legislation curtail women's rights? Absolutely, of course it does. Is it malicious toward women? I doubt it. Is it's goal "to punish women for being sexual beings?" I doubt it. Does it reflect "institutional misogyny?" Not directly. Would this kind of legislation put women's "bodies outside of their own control for someone else's benefit?" Yes, yes it would. But a movement to protect someone's rights *always* (that I can think of) comes at the expense of some freedoms from some parties. I'm not allowed to have sex with someone without their consent, I'm not allowed to drive my car without a license and insurance, nor can I drive it while intoxicated. I can't drive over 25 in a school zone. I can't (legally) abandon the mother of my children without financial support.
Is it patronizing to tell fully functioning adults that they can't live their life the way they want to if it would harm another person? If people are committed to the idea that a fetus has roughly the rights of a one-year-old child, I cannot see how restricting abortion is any different than restricting any other activity that can harm or potentially harm another person, at least in that context.
Yes, this would restrict women's rights. That is not misogyny.
