> All of this should be left to the woman, her doctor, her circumstances and her conscience I agree completely, however if we are contending with the counter argument that a fetus does become a "person" at some point late in the pregnancy, having an abortion after this point for no other reason than "I don't feel like it/ I changed my mind" would by definition have to be murder. The "competing rights to life" argument would not apply here.
Do you think the majority of democrats would support granting "personhood" to the fetus at some late stage in the pregnancy if conservatives would support legislating abortion into law (abortions before the fetus reaches personhood for any reason, after which only if the doctor believes the mother's life to be in danger.) Or this is too much of a compromise, women should be able to abort at any time for any reason?
Assuming the child isn't a danger to the mother, it just seems like punishing the child for who their father was.
If a dead person can't be forced to give up organs without prior consent, a living woman should not be forced to provide life support (at a risk to her own life by the way) for a fetus. Just like I can't be forced to donate a kidney to another person, a woman should not be forced to donate blood, bone and full life support to a fetus.
IOTW, it's literally a matter of competing rights to life. Carrying a pregnancy to term is a mortal risk. Certain pregnancies will kill the mother if not ended, and the fetus will never be viable. Other times the fetus is already dead, but since the law doesn't actually consider the fetus a person, it can't be removed due to abortion bans, and the woman is forced to carry a dead parasite and risk fatal sepsis.
All of this should be left to the woman, her doctor, her circumstances and her conscience, not a bunch of old men in legislatures and courts.