I disagree with the statement. Each and every one of is a sovereign being. We are all ultimately sovereign or in charge of our own bodies, to do with as we see fit. You and I and anyone else may disagree with what any one else may decide to do with that body, but it is theirs to with as they want. It is not yours or mine or anyone else's. It is a basic human right. You may not like murder for whatever reason, but you cannot deny that nature has made it so that it any man can take a life. But human rights are not somehow suspended due to nature. We has every right as a sentient beings to decide what is in our best interests, regardless of what ever you think. To say it a childish "you can't tell me what to do" tirade flies in the face of reality. It is simply an honest expression of reality. It is not childish or immature.
Fixed that for you. Anyone can take a life Ynot. Nature has afforded us the power to do it. Having the power does not equate to having the right.
This is a childish argument. The basic argument is that because someone is close in proximity to you, you now can kill them. Because "I'm sovereign". That is a childish, selfish mentality. You don't have the right [justification] for such an action just based on someone's proximity to you. Nor based on "I'm sovereign".
You can speak of ethics, all you want, but your ethics are your own. They are not all or some women's. We are all bound by our own code of ethics regardless. Each of us ultimately acts in what we consider our own best interests.
Ethics are objective. We can misjudge them. We can be incorrect. But they exist. They aren't "mine" or "yours".
If you really believe they are subjective, then you have no right to complain when I foist mine on someone else, because those are my values, and they're equally valid. Moral Relativism is a joke and is only used to trick the proles.
If you believe it is murder, then don't do it. But whatever the reasons, those are your reasons and yours alone. They are not those of the woman facing the prospect of acting in what they may not consider to be what is best for them.
Ultimately, whatever choice we make, we will live with. Some will make a choice you will not agree with it. But it isn't your place to decide for anyone else. They are the only ones who have to live with their decisions.
fixed that for you.
So, if my neighbor is luring children into their home to strangle them, then the response is "Whatever choice they make, they live with. Some will make a choice you don't agree with but it isn't your place to decide for anyone else".
You aren't even attempting to argue in a serious fashion, are you? It's okay, we're all used to it. It's all the Pro-Choice aisle has. They can only be disingenuous in their arguments, because they have none to stand on, and they know it. This is the great failing of the "Pro-Life" side. They allow you to determine the ground we'll fight on, and they permit you to shift it to an argument of "feelings". I'll not budge an inch on that because feelings are not a basis for law. Ethics are.
This is my point Ynot, you are proving it. We are speaking completely different languages. You're arguing about feelings, while I'm arguing about ethics and facts. We can't hope to have a meaningful dialogue if we speak past each other.
Facts don't care about your feelings.