I don't think it's the best argument for someone on the pro choice side (apart from being useful at persuading others perhaps).

The reason I don't think it's a very strong argument (and I'm pro-choice) is that it doesn't actually engage with the reasons pro-life people have concerns about abortion. Pro-life people are concerned because they believe (or want to be cautious about) that the fetus should be viewed on the same terms as human beings who are born. Thus, saying something like "that argument doesn't hold because women have a right to bodily autonomy" is just sidestepping the main concern. Pro-life feel that all human beings have a right to life. A lot of them would probably agree that in general women should have a right to their body, although when two rights come in to conflict, they'd probably go with the former right, the right to life.

It's easy enough to see how the autonomy thing can lead to bizarre suggestions if it's an absolute right. Autonomy implies a woman should be able to disconnect herself from the fetus at 39 weeks, a couple of hours before birth. Most people consider that once a baby is born, it automatically has those rights to life. So it seems odd that a couple of hours difference could alter the morality of letting the fetus/baby die. Another place where most people abandon the bodily autonomy thing is just after the birth. If a mother left the newborn at home, never fed, and the baby died,most people would agree the mother was not acting morally. If she said "well I have a right to what I do with my body, you can't force me to use it to feed the baby" people would say they are misusing the idea of the right to bodily autonomy. One of the reasons people have that reaction is that they think that the baby's right to life trumps any apparent right not to have to do anything with your body to keep the born baby alive.

Coming back to abortion, can you see now how the bodily autonomy right argument is not going to convince pro-life people, because the bodily rights argument is, to a lot of people, trumped by the right of the fetus? The real issue is whether or not the fetus deserves the status pro-life people believe it does. People who use the bodily autonomy argument have mostly already decided the answer to that question. Pro-lifers, who are either unsure about the status of the fetus, or believe it has a sacrosanct right to life, will not be convinced by the bodily right argument because of the general hierarchy of rights.

As said above, I'm not against abortion being offered to women, although I do think the body argument is not very useful to bring in to the discussion as it bypasses the issue pro-life people have by presupposing the fact that fetuses do not have deserve the same rights newborns do. I think if pro-choice want to debate pro-life, they really need to see why pro-life people view it differently and try to address those issues. For example, come up with reasons that the 12 week old fetus isn't the same as a newborn - it doesn't have the capacity for suffering, it has no conscious interests, etc. I think that would go a lot more towards convincing others. Of course, there are many pro-life people who are pro-life based on religious reasons - "once the sperm has fused with the egg, it is a person". That is less amenable to debate

I don't think it's the best argument for someone on the pro choice side (apart from being useful at persuading others perhaps).

The reason I don't think it's a very strong argument (and I'm pro-choice) is that it doesn't actually engage with the reasons pro-life people have concerns about abortion. Pro-life people are concerned because they believe (or want to be cautious about) that the fetus should be viewed on the same terms as human beings who are born. Thus, saying something like "that argument doesn't hold because women have a right to bodily autonomy" is just sidestepping the main concern. Pro-life feel that all human beings have a right to life. A lot of them would probably agree that in general women should have a right to their body, although when two rights come in to conflict, they'd probably go with the former right, the right to life.

It's easy enough to see how the autonomy thing can lead to bizarre suggestions if it's an absolute right. Autonomy implies a woman should be able to disconnect herself from the fetus at 39 weeks, a couple of hours before birth. Most people consider that once a baby is born, it automatically has those rights to life. So it seems odd that a couple of hours difference could alter the morality of letting the fetus/baby die. Another place where most people abandon the bodily autonomy thing is just after the birth. If a mother left the newborn at home, never fed, and the baby died, most people would agree the mother was not acting morally. If she said "well I have a right to what I do with my body, you can't force me to use it to feed the baby" people would say they are misusing the idea of the right to bodily autonomy. One of the reasons people have that reaction is that they think that the baby's right to life trumps any apparent right not to have to do anything with your body to keep the born baby alive.

Coming back to abortion, can you see now how the bodily autonomy right argument is not going to convince pro-life people, because the bodily rights argument is, to a lot of people, trumped by the right of the fetus? The real issue is whether or not the fetus deserves the status pro-life people believe it does. People who use the bodily autonomy argument have mostly already decided the answer to that question. Pro-lifers, who are either unsure about the status of the fetus, or believe it has a sacrosanct right to life, will not be convinced by the bodily right argument because of the general hierarchy of rights.

As said above, I'm not against abortion being offered to women, although I do think the body argument is not very useful to bring in to the discussion as it bypasses the issue pro-life people have by presupposing the fact that fetuses do not have deserve the same rights newborns do. I think if pro-choice want to debate pro-life, they really need to see why pro-life people view it differently and try to address those issues. For example, come up with reasons that the 12 week old fetus isn't the same as a newborn - it doesn't have the capacity for suffering, it has no conscious interests, etc. I think that would go a lot more towards convincing others. Of course, there are many pro-life people who are pro-life based on religious reasons - "once the sperm has fused with the egg, it is a person". That is less amenable to debate