I opposed abortion when I was an atheist, too. It seems to me that it is alive, and we shouldn't kill people.Again, you think. Would you really believe that without your faith? You can say it’s based on philosophy and science, but you just spent how much time explaining why your faith did not allow for abortions to be done.
Just because odious people agree with me on something does not mean that I support them in general. I don't. If Donald Trump loves mozza sticks, well, me too, I still think he's a jerk and I wouldn't vote for him if I were American. There are odious politicians looking for angles on all sides and about all issues.The problem with this is that to reach your goal of protecting lives, you're sacrificing others because the people you've allied yourself with are not being in any way reasonable. They're denying abortion in cases of detached placentas, and fatal birth defects. They're denying abortion care in cases where the fetus is already dead. I know you're against those cases, but you've allied yourself with people who are willing to kill women because they get more political power for being pants-on-head stupid about the issue.
No matter what you think abortion laws should be like, overruling Roe v. Wade and allowing unchecked absurdity when it comes to states making whatever crazy laws they want about the issue is horribly harmful. To the point of being unconscionable. You're not arguing in favor of saving the unborn, you're arguing in favor of punishing women.
Moreover, you're arguing in favor of ALL the losses that will will come, losing access to birth control, losing LGBTQ+ rights, losing interracial marriage, etc. etc.
This is not an issue that exists in a vaccuum. If you want to deny bodily autonomy just because you think that life begins at a fertilized egg, then you've got to accept all the bullshit that follows. Because everyone is going to lose a lot of rights if people don't have a right to their own bodies.
I believe this issue is preserving the bodily autonomy of the child. That's whose autonomy I worry about.
To take your example of 'let the fetus survive on its own if it can' - you wouldn't say this about a baby. A baby requires many people to support it in order to live. I don't think it is meaningfully different when the baby is exceptionally dependent on one person. In the case that the baby needs an organ, I agree. You can't force someone to give blood, a kidney, whatever. But if the mom vanished one night and the baby was left at a hospital, we certainly wouldn't say it's okay for staff to just go "Well I don't have to feed it, or notify anyone about this." There are certain things we would demand be done to take care of it, and we would consider it beyond negligence if they didn't.The argument "a woman growing a baby is natural" is BS.
You are not killing a person, you are allowing another person to stop doing a lot of serious harm to their own body for the sake of another's.
As you have said: after birth a mother can refuse to give blood - which is pretty uneventful and unharmful - to keep her child alive. If the fetus is a life, there's no reason why she should not have the same right before birth. Let the fetus survive on its own if it can.
A pregnancy is, in many/most/nearly all cases, NOT just nine months, fire-and-forget. It radically alters your body AND mind forever. Hormonal balance, hip and pelvis adjustments, breasts getting bigger, often spinal movement which can cause hernias, blood flow changes, etc etc.
Not just asking, but FORCING someone to accept their personality will change and their body will change for something they didn't ask for and don't want, for some tortured reasoning of "it might be a human of you really squint and look sideways at a lot of science" is just morally wrong.
Also, as has been shown a billion times, it is NOT about saving or protecting lives. Otherwise, childcare and education world be free, maternal leave would be longer and better paid, and the same damn people wouldn't be advocating for the death penalty, gun freedom, and so forth.
Trying to claim it's about preserving life is only even remotely possible if you're totally consistent about it.
As-is, it's a power play to enforce a servile role for women.
You say I'm advocating for 'forcing' a woman to alter her body, I say you're advocating for 'forcing' a human life to die.
I am opposed to the death penalty, I believe in helping mothers, etc. But saying "People should not be killed in the womb," and "Mothers should receive mat leave" are more than just degrees of difference. One is clearly more pressing and dangerous.