I don't see why people who adhere to the first interpretation should stop articulating their position.
I think OP's point was that they should articulate their position rather than rely on soundbites, particularly soundbites that can be interpreted in multiple ways.
For instance, 'My Body, My Right' could also be a slogan for allowing very late-term abortions.
That's part of the challenge. A non trivial portion of the pro-choice camp do in fact support unrestricted late term abortions.
i.e. They are designed so anyone can read them and fit their already held beliefs onto them. There is a some kind of interpretation of 'My Body, My Right' that can fit to almost any view on the whole political spectrum.
Largely because most late term abortions were the result of nonviable pregnancies. The laws in many of these states have already made that an uncomfortable proposition as women were given the choice of trying to bring obviously defective pregnancies to term, stillbirth is still a thing, and is particularly high in many of the sh$&thole states where women don't have good prenatal care.
I personally saw what it did to a woman I knew personally a few years ago. Due to TX's incredibly stupid laws, when the ultrasounds came back that the baby basically didn't have 1/2 a brain, sever spina bifida, and a few other details I don't remember. The woman was given the choice of trying to carry it to term at risk to her life, or abort it. And due to the timing, literally had to decide that day, then had to listen to its heartbeat, and listen to a bunch state mandated christian propaganda, sit around for 24 hours and then was allowed to terminate. All this bullshit magnified her sorrow. Losing a child one wants is bad enough, having to put up with a bunch of state mandated bullshit designed to make you feel bad and f*&k with your head? Criminal.
Without those laws, she probably would have waited at least a couple days to come to terms with the whole thing. I'm guessing some women in less clear cut circumstances might have waited to see how it develops until it was obviously nonviable resulting in a later term abortion.
The real criminals here are the ones in the legislature, and should be held responsible for the pain and suffering they cause.
I'm not making the argument that they shouldn't.
Rather, we were discussing the interesting situation where people that don't believe in unrestricted late term abortion use the same phrase.
It is interesting because it can ratchet up disagreement by signaling a more extreme position than they actually hold.
Pro-life and pro-choice are such poorly defined positions that someone with a middle option can easily classify as either
This is a huge part of the "debate". The two sides aren't even talking about the same issue because they haven't agreed on common language defining what the issue even is.
There isn't a 'correct' answer you can just reason your way to when conflicts of values are involved, because people with different value systems have different initial premises.
In any debate, people should at the very least be talking about the same thing