Anthrotheist made a strong point on another thread concerning what the central argument should be in the abortion debate:
The abortion debate isn’t about personhood or whether or not a nonviable fetus is a human being. That angle is purely a red herring introduced by the pro-life movement to distract people from the fact that they are advocating a policy that diminishes the level of bodily autonomy and right to self-determinism from where it currently is. They are trying to deflect from their attempt to stifle a woman’s right to control her body by creating a false dilemma over a fetus’s biologically determined status or philosophically defined conditions.
The pro-life position cannot logically be taken any further than to insist that a fetus’s right to bodily autonomy is as sacrosanct as the woman’s. That is the absolute end-game of the pro-life stance. It’s only possible result, the only rational resolution that it can truly support, is that if the woman chooses to end her pregnancy she must do so without physical harm to the fetus. Anything more than that erodes the legal and moral precepts that define why systems like slavery or forced organ/tissue donation are strictly forbidden. The end result for the fetus is the same, prior to the point of it being biologically and metabolically viable; the end result for the woman is a much more invasive and dangerous procedure which results in zero benefit for anybody. At that point it becomes a debate of whether deontology dictates that we must preserve the fetus’s rights regardless of result, or whether consequentialism demands that we do as little harm as possible to the only entity that has any chance whatsoever of surviving the procedure.
I think there is a lot to be said for this approach, though I would disagree to the extent that arguments aren’t mutually exclusive. As Ficino said in answer to Anthrotheist:
Stay in touch! Like A Tippling Philosopher on Facebook: