I don't understand the rationale behind any of this. If the point is that a man should never be able to tell a woman what to do with her body, then what about women who vote against legalisation? Why is it okay for them to tell other woman (eg. on religious grounds) what they can or cannot do?
I'm sure none of the posters think it is ok for a woman to dictate to another woman on that basis. Like you I'm puzzled what the point of this thread is- particularly as a women only vote potentially would be more restrictive.
I appreciate that the prevailing view here is that this nothing more than a question of bodily autonomy, but surely that's putting the cart before the horse? Lots of people hold the (non-religiously motivated) view that the foetus' rights are as important as the woman's. I don't agree with them, but I don't think they'be batshit crazy either. If 'what rights does the foetus have?' is part of the moral equation, then surely men should be allowed a view on the subject as well as women. If the answer is (effectively) 'none' or 'fewer than the woman' then, brilliant, that's democracy in action
The problem with the bodily autonomy argument is that from an anti-abortion stance it is so easy to counter.
A pregnant woman is in a unique and special position , which does not apply to any men or any non- pregnant women, where another living entity is dependant on her body and only her body.
It does not compare to donor situations no matter how often that analogy gets trotted out.
The argument which works for me is "less rights than the foetus". Perhaps that is splitting hairs as the result is the same but I can certainly understand why "bodily autonomy" would not convince opponents.