The point was that after 24 weeks a woman hasn't lost all control over her own body (which you implied), she still has free will. I am not aware than it is illegal for a woman to cause an accidental miscarriage as long as its not using controlled substances etc. A foetus does not have the rights of a human being, so you couldn't be charged with murder, or manslaughter.
Anyway back to the morality of it, you are labelling things moral or immoral, but thats not how it works. Morality is relative to the situation and circumstances. For example you might say it was morale for someone in extreme pain to commit suicide but immorale (and should be stopped) if the person was not in their right mind.
what moral aspect of the bodily autonomy principle changes at this point what changes at this point is the greatest good. This is different for every situation but laws have to be fixed so it becomes the greatest good for most people and society, on average. At ten weeks, if a person wants a termination the balance of greatest good is in favour of the mother, after all the embryo is only a few cells. But as the baby develops, the balance of greatest good (which is how we judge morality) starts to increase towards the foetus. The mother has had a chance for termination, the foetus has developed into more than just a few cells, society's emotional reactions become stronger and many other factors deem the balance of greatest good to be more in favour of the baby.
However in many cases the balance of greatest good can swing back in favour of the mother and a termination. For example if a 30 week pregnant mother is so desperate to have a termination that she is willing to risk her own life attempting to have a 'accidental' termination. Then it might be deemed the least worst option (or greatest good) would be a late term abortion and thus a morale act.
You might still think its an immoral act but its society as a whole that determines morality and usually that is enacted in law. Yes we sometimes get it wrong but this has always been self correcting and in general like entropy always travels in one direction.
You might hold some aloof morale positions but morality is also relative to what is practical and what is possible. For example we might say its immoral to let a person die when there is a drug that could save them but society cannot afford to spend unlimited money on every single patient and we do have to include a financial consideration in a moral judgement. So society has decided that there has to be limits on how much money is spent on patients, even if it means they die.
If having consensual sex is giving up bodily autonomy then once you start you no longer have the right to stop and say no? Surely not! If you make that comparison then you are saying even being a passenger in a car is giving up bodily control, with no right to ask the driver to stop and let you out. Remember one of the factors in morality is what is practical and what is possible, to help us weigh up the greater good. So a better example would be to say anti-abortionists who give up a right to free will when they become impregnated is like a person boarding an aeroplane. Once in the air they cannot get off even if they want to, even though its possible to jump out the door, society has deemed it morale to stop them because everyone else would die and that is not the greatest good. However if you did that in a car, it would be deemed immoral because the car could stop you could get out and noone would die.
So back to the pregnancy, it is possible to have an abortion without harming anyone, so if a woman wanted one it would be immoral to stop her and akin to holding her body hostage, as determined by our society seeking the greatest good. You do not give up your bodily rights just because you are impregnated and just because some religious group has picked an arbitrary time to say that, that is the point when life becomes sacred.
Its not even as if you can say every time you have sex you get pregnant and therefore should have known before and just have to give up your body/life for 9 months/18 years/ forever.. That would be like saying every time you get in a car you could have an accident so if you do you have to live with a damaged car for the rest of your life because you should have known. We have an accident we can fix it, if you accidentally get pregnant then you can fix it.
So you're saying all life is sacred is the reason for being pro life, but what about animal life, great apes, cows, burgers, sausages, flowers, herbs, mushrooms, atoms, stardust? It seems hypocritical to just say 'All Life'? Do you mean DNA, just human DNA? Cells, just human cells, skin cells? You also use an arbitrary time frame, fertilisation. Why pick that time, why not any other time?
So it seems you need to clarify what life you mean, how you determine it is life, how you can say fertilisation is when that life come into existence. It seems you are asking for answers you arent prepared to give yourself..
The pro-choicers time frame doesn't seem to reflect anything objective, Umm who decided it had to be something objective? That aside it is both subjective and objective reasons and they have been said many times. Viability of foetus, development of consciousness, experiencing pain, forming memories, effect on mother, people's emotions, medical objective facts as well as people's subjective opinions etc etc etc, it is based on a lot more than an intangible statement like, 'life is sacred'! Pass me the Big Mac!
there is no recognition of a child's right to life - because you have not demonstrated there is a right to life for a foetus, most people don't think there is.
If late-term abortions were routinely available, absolutely no one would choose one Almost noone, 90% of all terminations occur before the first 12 weeks. Only around 1% occurs between 20-24 weeks and only 100ish occur after 24 weeks. Why do you think any mother would wait longer than they had to, except in exceptional circumstances? It's not magic, its an important decision and most make it as soon as they can because of the big affect it has on their lives.
A woman chooses to give up some bodily autonomy post-24 weeks because society has agreed that is a good and morale thing to do, after all the facts and circumstances have been weighed up to work out the greatest good, just like obeying the speed limit. If we lowered the time scale to 12 weeks then we would have to justify why it was better/more morale than 24 weeks. I haven't thought through the arguments but just off top of my head: how many more women would feel pushed into an abortion because they can't leave it long enough to make a decision, what about screening tests 18-21 weeks, are there people who don't realise they are pregnant that early, would more unwanted babies be born, adoption rates, childrens homes, teenage mums, rates of illegal abortions, what would you do to women who aborted after 12 weeks, people travelling overseas for terminations, people who can't afford to travel overseas for abortions. then you weigh that against the benefit, what is that?
You see most people don't agree with the religious opinion that an egg magically become 'a life' the second it is fertilised, most agree its just a few cells, maybe it will turn into life maybe it won't. On balance I can't see society agreeing that a change to 12 weeks would be more morale and increase the greater good. I could see a little change to 22 or 21 weeks if medical science advanced more to make foetuses more viable outside the womb, but even then 24 weeks has stood the test of time as being a good balance between all the factors and viability is only one.
And lastly (whew this is long) how did you pick 12 weeks. Isnt that as arbitrary as the claims you make about 24? Where is your evidence that all women are able to decide within that time? When obviously they aren't. Doesn't 12 weeks seem hypocritical?
