Okay, I’ll bite.

I’m pro-choice because I believe that abortion is a body autonomy issue.

It is the woman’s decision whether or not to end her pregnancy because it is her body. Full-stop, end of discussion.

I’ll deviate from the standard pro-choice talking points though, otherwise there’s not much point in having a discussion that’s already had by thousands of other people, repeating the same points over and over.

The whole debate over “Does life begin at conception?” is irrelevant. It’s a misdirection created by the pro-lifers to direct from the real heart of the issue. Body autonomy.

So I am fully willing to concede that life begins at conception, and that a fetus at any stage is a human life, and I will agree with that an abortion at any stage is the termination of that human life.

It doesn’t change anything.

It’s still about body autonomy.

Let’s suppose, hypothetically, that a child of eight years is dying of a terminal illness. She needs a kidney transplant to live. Both of her parents are found to be a match, but they’re shitty parents, and neither of them is willing to donate their own kidneys, for whatever reason you can imagine. Perhaps they’re deathly afraid of invasive surgery, or perhaps they have religious objections —whatever, their reason for refusing isn’t important.

Could a judge intervene and legally force the parent to donate a kidney? Of course not. Legally, no one can force you to donate a kidney to anyone, not even to your child.

But that’s not a perfect analogy. The pro-lifers love to talk about how the mothers engaged in sex, knowing full well that pregnancy was a possible outcome. They love to talk about taking personal responsibility for your actions.

So let’s adjust the analogy.

The parents are, in this case, directly responsible for the child’s illness. Let’s say they knowingly poisoned her. They’ve been charged, tried, and convicted of attempted murder and they’re both in federal prison serving 25 year prison sentences.

In this scenario, is it permissible for a judge to compel these people to donate a kidney to save their daughter’s life? Nope, a judge still can’t legally do that. A person has the legal right to their own internal organs, and no one is allowed to say what you can or cannot do with them, even if another person’s life is at stake.

— — —

As for the other issue: allowing a parent to terminate their parental rights and absolve themselves of financial responsibilities.

In a perfectly fair world, where a single parent could easily raise a child on a single income, I might look more favorably on that suggestion.

But the reality is that we don’t live in such a world, and somebody has to pay for the kid’s upbringing. If a single parent can’t manage on their own, who should have to step in and take up the slack?

The choices are:

(A) The deadbeat dad.

(B) The taxpayers, via welfare.

Now, it might not be fair for the deadbeat parent to be on the hook for a child they never wanted.

Is it any more fair for the taxpayers — who played no role in the conception of the child — to be on the hook instead?