As I said on the original thread on this argument: It seems very reductionist to argue that the 'Soverign Zone' argument ('SZ') permits ANYTHING within the zone, in the same way that it seems wrong (for most of us) to argue for unfettered power for the state within 'their' country. However, just as we recognise that the state has certain powers within their SZ, so too might the woman within hers. That might include the termination of a foetus (note: most sensible pro-choice advocates will object to your use of the word kill) but reasonably might not include the deliberate deformation of a foetus you know you are intending to bring to term. Many American states permit state sanctioned killing of certain people but not the torture of those same people, so whilst this is certainly debatable it isnt illogical. Again, those same states permit execution but not 'without rules' - they recognise that even if a decision is morally justified, and that they HAVE A RIGHT to do it (under their SZ), that doesnt mean they have an unfettered right.
I'm not saying it isn't up for discussion, just that the argument as you frame it approaches a reducto ad absurdem. Again, we might argue that the death penalty is cruel and unjust, whilst most American states argue that within their state it is their right to exercise as the legal system sees fit. But that is an argument about the limits of the sovereign's power within the SZ.
Now, obviously as soon as you concede there are SOME limits to the SZ then you invite the debate on what those limits are. But the key point here (and where, respectfully, your argument fails) is that it is not philosophically illogical or unreasonable to argue that you, morally speaking, can terminate the foetus but not without any restriction. This argument only works against the least sophisiticated, straw mannish pro choice position.
I'm not saying it isn't up for discussion, just that the argument as you frame it approaches a reducto ad absurdem. Again, we might argue that the death penalty is cruel and unjust, whilst most American states argue that within their state it is their right to exercise as the legal system sees fit. But that is an argument about the limits of the sovereign's power within the SZ.
Now, obviously as soon as you concede there are SOME limits to the SZ then you invite the debate on what those limits are. But the key point here (and where, respectfully, your argument fails) is that it is not philosophically illogical or unreasonable to argue that you, morally speaking, can terminate the foetus but not without any restriction. This argument only works against the least sophisiticated, straw mannish pro choice position.