Missouri Bill Would Put State Gun Sales Under Same Restrictions as Abortions

[Ebowed]

Even if we accept the premise that the fetus is a conscious human being with ethical entitlements, it does not follow that the mother has an obligation to carry it.  Criminalizing a woman who doesn't wish to keep housing another being is like sending someone to jail for not giving blood when someone else needed it.  It's not illegal to not be an organ donor, etc.

Our basic values of autonomy are not compatible with the logic required to criminalize abortion.

[Ebowed]

Our basic values of autonomy are not compatible with the logic required to criminalize abortion.

One could just as easily say that a basic value of autonomy is not compatible with the logic required to have taxation, the draft, government regulation, social welfare programs, etc.  Indeed, government itself is not logically compatible with autonomy. Government is all about limiting autonomy and the only significant differences between governments are who decides what autonomies are limited and what aims are hoped to be achieved by those limits.

One could, but their argument won't necessarily be accepted in good faith (with the exception of the draft, on which I'll concede the point).  Really, a more comparable infringement on bodily autonomy would be laws prohibiting the consumption of psychoactive substances, although even that is still not quite on the same level as forcing someone to house another human being.  It is the prerogative of libertarians to say that 'rights' are denied when behavior is regulated, or taxes owed - but in reality, this is a 'right' to do to other people as you wish.  This is not a 'right' that is intrinsic to one's bodily autonomy.  No, the right to do as you please, or indeed, refuse to pay taxes or pay towards public services is not the same thing as being told that you must keep someone alive through the sole use and occupation of your own body.  To conflate these conceptions of autonomy (or indeed, to conflate the fetus in pregnancy with citizens who are dependent on financial assistance) is to demonstrate a total inability to empathize with women.

[Ebowed]

And there in the bolded text you lay clear your position.  You don't see the unborn as people, which likely is why you appear to demonstrate a total inability to empathize with the unborn. Those who favor restricting or even banning abortion do see the unborn as people.  The differing definitions of what counts as a person is precisely why the definition that society as a whole uses is subjective.

I figured you'd say that, but again, even if we grant that the fetus is a separate human entity with the implied ethical entitlements, it's still unclear how you jump from point A (the bodily autonomy that stops us from being forced to participate in blood transfusions) to point B (this autonomy disappears because you are a woman bearing child).  After all, you aren't defending the human rights of the person who relies on a blood transfusion or an organ donation.  You're simply arguing for mandatory childbirth.

[Ebowed]

Unlike your two counterexamples, there is but a single person who can provide the necessary medical support

So, if a person who needed a blood transfusion could only get it from one other person, then it would be okay to force the other to provide it?

but more importantly, except in cases of rape or incest, the mother was a willing part of the reason why the medical support was needed in the first place.

Yes, but I recall that you don't support exceptions for rape and incest.  (My apologies if I'm misremembering.)  Either way, even if a woman did knowingly set out to get pregnant, that does not mean she has forfeited her right to bodily autonomy.  In the instance of an ectopic pregnancy, the continued development of the fetus poses a direct threat to the livelihood of the mother.  Does she abdicate her autonomy because she originally desired the pregnancy, or is there something more important at play here?