For the sake of clarity of context I'm riposting my argument for the casual reader:
Dependent Variable (the point we're debating):
Independent Variables (the scope and context under which the point being debated should be true):
- Private person > Private Business.
- A right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
- A right which is otherwise being lawfully exorsized.
- A private 'real', 'natural' person exorsizing the right.
- A private business forbidding the exorsize of that right.
It would be nice if you could confront my argument for what it is instead of shying away behind straw-men.
- Mother = employer.
- Womb = the business's building/land.
- ZEF = the employee.
If one values bodily sovereignty then one necessarily opposes elective abortion and supports an employee's right to carry while at work. However, if one is pro-choice then it follows that they would support banning guns on business property regardless of anyone else's personal rights.
The analogy reaches it's limit, however, when we account for the fact that the ZEF is not the mother's employee, but is closer to the aforementioned "social guest". A 'social guest' per-se can be removed from private property for any or no reason, unless doing so would cause that social guest to die. Therefore it follows that elective abortion not be allowed when it would cause the death of the ZEF.
Great analogy, you just proved my logical consistency across political topics, and for that I thank you.