I’m not denying anything that is true. I am simply asserting that, as a general matter, each individual has the fundamental right to decide what happens with his or her body. In the context of a pregnancy, that fundamental right includes the right to decide whether to continue playing host to another human being. And that this right cannot be countermanded by the government through the prohibition of abortion so long as that other human being remains nonviable; i.e., is not sufficiently developed to survive outside the womb by, for example, not having lungs capable of absorbing oxygen from the air breathed in yet. After that point, once the fetus has become viable in a meaningful sense, and only then, does the government have a sufficient interest in the fetus that it can limit the woman’s ability to abort the fetus.
For the fetuses existence to have sufficient weight to outweigh the woman’s right to control her own body, it’s separate existence must have become meaningful in some concrete way that would allow it some real possibility of surviving apart from the woman. Until then, it’s existence is not sufficient to outweigh her rights because it has no existence apart from its connection to her.
More propaganda from the left, not based on truth.
Once again, the compromise even you devoted leftists could agree on, but refuse to, is that the life doesn't have to be ended if the woman carries the life SHE MADE THE DECISION TO HELP CREATE to term, gives birth, and then gives the child up for adoption.
We are talking about your saying the convenience of the mother who MADE THE CHOICE to have sex is more important than the life created by her CHOICE.
And you have said it repeatedly, so you clearly mean it.
Convenience for you trumps life.
Bad choice.