There is really no underlying principles. They didn't come up with a set of values and then make decisions on policies based on that, they came up with the positions, then came up with principles to justify them. Since the positions were determined without any guiding principle, there is no consistency in the reasoning. And I don't think that most of the far right, if there is such a thing anymore and it's not just the right, really cares.

I don't oppose abortion but your comparison doesn't really work. Doctors aren't actively killing somebody in your example, but this would be the case if abortion is done later in pregnancy.

In Finland abortion can't be done after 24 weeks of pregnancy so yes, at that point the mother is forced to use her body to keep her child alive. I see nothing wrong with this, and it's not the case of 'fuck pregnant women'. 

edit. There's an exception, abortion can be done at any time if pregnancy is putting mother's life at serious risk or she would likely die delivering the baby. This decicion must be made by at least two doctors.

But my point was, it doesn't matter if in no other situation will we force a person to use their body to keep someone else alive because no other situation really compares to pregnancy.

This is why I call "Pro-life" "Pro forced-birth". Because most of he pro-life movement are also same people who are against gun laws, as well as the anti-vaxxers and anti-mask movements and against universal healthcare. And neither of those are anything I could call pro Life at all. It's more like forcing the baby to get born and then don't care about it or it's mother in the slightest anymore.

Nor in an abortion are they actively killing somebody. They are removing the baby from the mother. As a consequence of the mother stopping the use of her body, the baby will die. Just like as a consequence of my dad removing his IV, I will die. If there is some way we can argue the procedure itself directly hurts the fetus beyond what is necessary for removal, I presume the process could be altered.

No two scenarios are going to track 100%, but if we are going to allow in one situation and not another, there needs to be a rationale for that distinction.

In the IV example, my father pulling out an IV will lead to my death. Additionally, there is zero risk to my father, no damage to his body, and minimal discomfort. My father is responsible for me being alive in the first place (I assume although I bear a striking resemblance to the milk man). If we want to make this example closer to a pregnancy, lets make it prenatal. The doctors have identified the defect in the womb, which through some weird science fiction, can be cured if my father keeps an IV in his arm for 30 minutes. After 5 minutes, he decided "nope I'm out I'm pulling out this needle". 

Can we stop by dad from removing the needle?  Both cases will 100% lead to dead. The difference is that the imposition on my father in this case is far less severe than that on a pregnant woman. So if my dad has the right to remove the needle, why not remove the fetus? 

I can't really think of any legitimate reason to disallow pregnancy at any certain point, but if we give a women enough time to make a decision and follow through, then that's not a hill I'd die on.

So many good pro-choice arguments around and you decide to go full right-wing nutjob with that next-level semantics and whataboutism stuff heh.

If you take an action and the only possible consequence is someone's death, you're actively killing as far as I'm concerned. Be it abortion or pulling a plug. Legally it may or may not be a murder, depending on circumstance and law.

If your fictional medical procedures become reality one day, then of course there needs to be a discussion and laws made for such scenario. But it has nothing to do with abortion. I would be Pro "keep an IV in your arm for 30 minutes to save your child you asshole" law for sure.

I see you mentioned a fetus. I was pointing out a situation of later pregnancy when fetus has developed (is this a right word for this?) to basically an unborn child. I'm very much pro-choice earlier in pregnancy. Do you think Finland has this all wrong and it should be legal for woman to choose an abortion in, let's say week 32? 

Its pretty simple for me, as soon as there is a fetus, the mother makes a decision on the life of that fetus. We can say its a clump of cells or its not actually human until there is brain activity ect but in the end its still a life. Whether its early or late in development it really does not matter. Whether you believe you are destroying a life or not is up to each individual. Since its something personal for each person journey, its also should be left to their decision. Even if you are religious, its always going to be in GODs hands whether that child gets born or not.

As for a bunch of abortion laws, I am actually against that. What it really does is setup a cast system where people with money will always find a way compared to people who do not. Only thing will happen is that people with means will always have access and people without will just either get drugs or find someone willing to do it like it was done in the past. States trying to make it criminal to have abortions outside of their state is some big BS as well, which I believe is going to be struck down.

There is an interesting article about Texas where they are waiting for Roe to be overturned. When it happens they plan on putting in all these abortion laws but the interesting part is that the politicians are saying they are then in favor of entitlement benefits for mothers giving assistance to having these children. When you read the article you ask yourself, why would they need to wait until after Roe is struck down to actually provide these assistance when they could have done this as an alternative years ago. The answer in my book is that its all political PR. Politicians like the sound of ending abortion but in reality they are really not prepared for it. It makes good sound bites but when you have to support it well things get more complicated. So when a lot of these babies start turning up under their care we will see how they handle the situation.

A fetus is a fetus until it is born. That is the definition. But, as the principle I'm using is consent, it does not matter from that perspective how old or how developed the fetus is. If you used another standard, it might.

As I said, I can not think of any reasonable distinction between 32 weeks and 20 weeks. If the issue here is consent, then I can't see a valid argument for allowing it based on time. I would find it morally objectionable in many cases, but we do not legistlate morality. Also, I find it hard to think of any rule regarding timing that would allow for exceptions in extreme cases such as cases of extreme defect or risk to the mother's life. If we decide at 24 weeks a fetus is a human with human rights, and that removing it from the mother is unlawful, I don't see how we can say when the mother's life is at risk we can. At that point, we are just choosing between two lives. So, yeah that's my tentative position until I hear a compelling reason to believe otherwise.

Saying it's killing but not murder defeats the whole purpose of the discussion. I am only concerned with legality, and I leave the moral decision to the mother. If you're saying it's killing but maybe not murder, then you are basically acknowledging that it should be, or at least there's a reasonable chance it should be a lawful killing, as some killings are. I'm fine with that, not gonna split hairs.

This is not whataboutism. Whataboutism is distracting from an issue by pointing out something else somebody else has done wrong. I.e. well you say Biden's senile, but look at Trump. If Trump were senile, it would have no bearing on whether Biden is. On the other hand, asking for a unifying principle on which to judge situations is what the American legal system is built on. It is a case law system, if you declare something legal in one case, you cannot declare it illegal in another without justification for such a distinction. And a great many cases are decided based on the impact they would have on other situations, even hypothetical situations. 

Your position on the IV example is at least consistent, but, you are saying that the government has a right to force someone, in certain circumstances, to use their body to support the life of another. And that leads to troubling places. If we can force someone to keep in an IV because essentially, it's no big deal, then the question is under what circumstances does it become a big deal? If the IV had to be in for 24 hours? 72 hours? Can we force them to put in the IV in the first place? Forcibly donating blood? A kidney? I'm not saying these situations are all the same, but creating an intelligible rule to govern those situations is difficult, and it's a task I do not trust the government to handle.

A better rule is that the government, or anyone else really, can under no circumstances force you to use your body to support the life of another. This is a clean and easy rule, that relies on the firm foundation of bodily authonomy. Bright line rules often have harsh consequences, but that's the way it goes. Otherwise, we have to determine how much of your body and to what extent we can use to protect the lives of others. 

For the TL:DR version, what is the principle which allows the government to prevent an abortion that would not justify other restrictions or impositions on bodily autonomy that would clearly be wrong? 

The reasonable distinction comes from whether the fetus has a chance to survive an early birth, with the right treatment of course. And after week 24 the chance gets higher. But a mother isn't forced to risk her life delivering a baby, that would be awful. A tough choice between two lives maybe but life ain't always simple. Of course they'll try to save the baby too if at all possible. But yes, this would be the case of lawful killing. Murder was a too strong word anyway, an illegal abortion isn't charged as a murder here anyway nor it should be imo. 

I think you're now going into semantics about whataboutism. To me it read like you were saying if this is ok, what about this imaginary scenario? But ok, your country's legal system is different to ours. I must say, if you can't make abortion laws without considering an imaginary future treatments or forcefully taking someone's kidney.. well, good luck to you :)

Yes I'm saying a government has a right to 'force' a mother to carry a baby. It also has a right to force a man to take a dna-test if he denies his fatherhood. Possibly force you to save your child's life with 30min imaginary treatment. It should be looked into once it's reality, maybe it gets too difficult to come up with intelligent laws but I don't like extremes either.

I take it you didn't support mandatory vaccinations either?

edit. Your question "For the TL:DR version, what is the principle which allows the government to prevent an abortion that would not justify other restrictions or impositions on bodily autonomy that would clearly be wrong? "

A principle? There are laws about abortion, government or anyone can't use to justify anything else beyond abortion. 

To add to this, 90% of abortions happen in the first trimester.  And third trimester abortions (what I imagine most people are referring to as "late-term") represent less than 1% of abortions.  There is this fantasy of the mother changing her mind and flippantly getting a late-term abortion.  I think the more realistic concern people might have are abortions due to a perceived fetal abnormality.  While those can happen at later stages (depends on the state), the vast majority of late abortions are due to legitimate health risks for the mother.

Even if someone decided they did not want the child in the third trimester, a reasonable medical professional would still recommend the mother to carry the fetus to term, regardless of the ethics.  Why?  Because after a certain point, a pregnancy without any perceived complications is safer to follow through to term.  Late abortions come with their own risks too.

Edit:  I was checking the numbers, and it was actually over 98% of abortions happen by week 20.  Third trimester starts at week 29.  I hope these numbers put into perspective how insignificantly small the number of "late-term" abortions there are.  People often spend most of their time arguing about the fraction of a percent of abortions to the detriment of the vast-vast-vast majority of the women who get abortions.

Worse, there are right wing politicians and pundits claiming mothers and hospitals are conducting 'post-birth' abortions. Insanity.