[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

You are incorrect about Person C being morally accepting of abortion.

Person C just believes that the state can’t dictate the outcome due to bodily autonomy. They can hold that a person choosing to abort has prevented life from from existing and therefore committed an immoral act but also recognize that the state cannot intervene in bodily automany. I don’t understand how you think this position is not possible.

Because it's internally self-contradictory. Your position is inherently illogical. You might as well be saying that 1+1 is 3. Specifically, this statement makes zero sense:

It simply states that you rights to bodily antimony supersede the rights of the appendage inside of you but if you choose to cause that appendage to not exist you have committed an immoral act.

These are, simply put, incompatible positions. It's "X and not X". If your rights to bodily autonomy supersede the rights of the appendage inside of you, you are by definition not acting immorally when you act in a preference to the former set of rights. That is what "supersede" means.

There are all kinds of acts that various individuals believe are immoral that those same individuals do not believe should be banned by the state.

This is true. For example, I might think lying is immoral in certain situations, but I don't think there should be a law against it. There are plenty of examples. But we're talking about ending the life of a human being here - i.e., killing babies. If you don't think that abortion is ending the life of a human being, then you have no reason to think abortion is immoral ab initio. No logical inconsistency arises.

But if you do think that it's ending the life of a human person, then saying "I think this is ending the life of a person, and I think that's a moral evil, but I don't think the state should be able to interfere with your ability to take this particular type of human life" is a position for which you have yet to provide any good rational argument for that anyone would accept.

If you do, I'm all ears. Maybe you have some concept whereby people who don't have fully developed brains have less of a right to life than other people, for example - that would at least be a rational position, even though it would result in having to accept some moral outcomes that you may not be able to stomach.

Am I misinterpreting your position?

No, you're failing to appreciate the inescapable logical conclusion of your own. The only way out of this is if you have some reason to think that abortion is immoral while simultaneously NOT believing that the reason it's immoral is that it's taking the life of a human person with a right to not be killed. If you have an explanation for another reason why it's immoral, maybe there's somewhere to go, but I haven't heard one from any pro-lifer I've ever talked to.