Can we respect bodily autonomy and not respect bodily autonomy at the same time? Basically no? Pretty much no. The no, there, is pretty straightforward. If you want to limit abortion, limit the conditions that incentivize abortion and stay the hell away from telling someone what they can or can't do with their own body. Shit's honestly fairly simple on that front. And ninja'd, but eh.
There's pretty much nothing else we treat like it, even when there's similar or functionally identical concerns. So either we need to treat abortion like we do everything else (i.e. no coercion involved), or it's mandatory blood giving and organ donation and being drafted to aid with caregiving the invalid (or violent, or etc. -- remember we're talking about forcing someone to do something that's life threatening and can cause permanent health damage, so the scope ranges pretty wide!) and so on. Coercion for everyone!
"We don't like the results of the current rules, so we're going to change the rules so we can get the results we want."
Or put more simply "when we have enough power, we'll change the rules to make it the way we want." Essentially the removal of all checks and balances against the majority making the rules at the expense of the minority.
Though yeah, consider that's basically already happened and abuse of other sorts of horseshit has
already packed the courts. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if that's what it takes to get a SCOTUS galley that's not majority crank what's overtly hostile to the majority of the country's citizens and slates of minorities on the side, well. You play the hand you're dealt, if you're able, y'know?
Court could honestly stand to be expanded regardless, just like the House and the general Judiciary, among other things. There's a fair amount of shit in the US federal system that hasn't really expanded as much as it should have as our population grew.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4473471 times)