I also think you're dismissing privacy too quickly. How much privacy would you give up in the name of saving lives?
In regards to bodily autonomy, again if the fetus is a life, you have to be a good steward of the life. I don't think you have a (moral) right to harm your body to the detriment of the life, much like you don't have a right to drive off a cliff with someone inside your car with you. And if someone assaults you and results in you losing your baby, I don't think that's the same as a regular assault.
The same people who (falsely) screamed about vaccine mandates being a HIPAA violation sure don't give a fuck about that now.
> The same people who (falsely) screamed about vaccine mandates being a HIPAA violation sure don't give a fuck about that now.
If you're going to make the argument that privacy requirements protect abortion procedures, then that would also mean that vaccine mandates are not allowed for the same reason. You can't have it both ways.
This is a pretty weak argument which could be used to justify any number of things. Can you rape or murder behind closed doors, and invoke the right to privacy when the authorities try to stop you?
Just because X happens in private doesn't make it legal and protected by privacy rights.
There are plenty of illegal medical procedures. You can't have a doctor remove a kidney and help you sell it, for example.
How is the government going to know which people have fetuses in them, and how long they've been there, without some loss of privacy? (Do you think menstrual cycles are private information, for example?)
And how does the government know what people do (or plan to do) to their own bodies without some loss of privacy?
> In regards to bodily autonomy, again if the fetus is a life
Well yes, you can argue against bodily autonomy as a compelling argument for legalizing abortion. My initial point was that you were just ignoring it.
That said...
> you have to be a good steward of the life
Says who? Compelling someone to use their body as a host (not "steward") of another life is a violation of their bodily autonomy.
If you're going to use car analogies, we also don't say that anyone involved in a car crash must donate blood or organs to save other victims.
Originally we were talking about many people forced to give up privacy in order to possibly prevent some potential future deaths.
You're talking about one person consenting to give up privacy in order to prevent multiple certain deaths.
It's curious that the definition of human life is different in every state. The circumstances around brain death, euthanasia, and suicide are decided locally, not federally. In fact, I think before ROe v Wade, the Supremes never before tried to define what is "human" and what is not. Even the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th amendment (which decided the citizenship and equal protection under law of black people) was not decided by the Supremes but by the states.
Probably, now, it would be better if the states wrote legislation that clearly defines human life, thereby taking such an important issue out of the hands of unelected politicians like the Supremes.
Even if we agreed that life begins at conception, it's not at all clear to me that the bodily autonomy and privacy issues would go away.
> it would be better if the states wrote legislation that clearly defines human life
Except there's no objective answer in reality, because "human life" is a fuzzy made-up concept. I doubt some arbitrary legislation would settle things down. People would still disagree just as vehemently.