> The key issue in the abortion debate is – "at which point in the development of an individual human does it gain the moral status of a person".
Its sometimes framed that way, but since the situation is sui generis in other ways (no one ever has entitlement to another human's body the way necessary for compulsory continuation of pregnancy in any other circumstance) there are other valid framings; particularly, its equally valid to frame it as "what is the extent of the right of bodily autonomy against intrusions by other humans".
In truth, there is no single key issue, and there is a fair degree of correlation between the differences on those issues, so its often difficult to even pull one out as decisive for any individual, much less for the general debate.
I agree that’s another relevant framing, although once again it is a moral question, and hence not within the proper scope of the natural sciences to answer.
But, even if one were to agree that a woman has a right to bodily autonomy which outweighs the right of her unborn child to life, how does that apply to a case like the one I referred to, of a termination at >= 37 weeks for a maternal psychosocial indication? If the mother didn’t want the child, why not permit it to be born alive, then put it up for adoption? It seems clear that particular line of argument, whether or not it is correct, is insufficient to justify the law and practice of the state of Victoria, Australia (and the same may possibly be true of some other jurisdictions as well.)
Its sometimes framed that way, but since the situation is sui generis in other ways (no one ever has entitlement to another human's body the way necessary for compulsory continuation of pregnancy in any other circumstance) there are other valid framings; particularly, its equally valid to frame it as "what is the extent of the right of bodily autonomy against intrusions by other humans".
In truth, there is no single key issue, and there is a fair degree of correlation between the differences on those issues, so its often difficult to even pull one out as decisive for any individual, much less for the general debate.