I think it's disingenuous to imply that it's impossible to separate legality from morality or ethics.
Saying "women shouldn't be forced to have medical procedures performed against their consent" is not just arguing about whose opinion is better. You are missing the forest for the trees.
> Saying "women shouldn't be forced to have medical procedures performed against their consent" is not just arguing about whose opinion is better.
Who's arguing that? I already made my position on that point clear: I think it's repugnant.
This thread (if you read back upthread) is literally only about the following sentence:
> I personally would rather discuss what is morally justifiable, since that is a more important standard.
But, while we're here anyway, I may as well ask why is the argument "women shouldn't have medical procedures performed against their consent"?
Why isn't the argument "people shouldn't have medical procedures against their consent"? Surely the notion that everyone should be treated equally is a morally superior position, so why focus on the less-moral argument?
Saying "women shouldn't be forced to have medical procedures performed against their consent" is not just arguing about whose opinion is better. You are missing the forest for the trees.