Laws exist to protect others. That why you can’t drive drunk or speed. The basis of anti abortion laws is trusting in the science that says there is a distinct human life that needs protecting.

> You are free to deny medical care for yourself based on your religious views (e.g. not accepting blood), but your religion means nothing when it comes to other people’s freedoms

Religion is not really relevant here. If the fetus is a person then aborting them is denying other people's freedom.

The question of when along the path of human development one becomes a person is not inherently a religious question.

I know many atheists for example who are fine with banning abortions of healthy fetuses that are moments away from birth unless there is something about the birth that would put the mother at unusual risk. That's because they can't find a way to count a newborn baby as a person but exclude a soon to be born fetus because nothing changes between those two times in the things that they consider relevant for determining personhood.

> the fetus is a person then aborting them is denying other people's freedom.

Even if it is a person, you completely fail to take into account the mother as a living human being.

Should we save someone in need of a kidney by forcing someone else to give up one of theirs? Not even another person’s life worth more than forcing away the freedom to bodily autonomy - and pregnancy does take an insanely huge toll on the women’s body, so she should be the only arbiter in deciding what she does with it. And “she chose to have sex” is not a valid argument, it is basic human need, and even with protection it is not 100% safe, shit happens.

Of course no sane person talks about aborting in like the 8th months or so, but early enough it is absolutely not a huge deal, especially that not doing so would just break two people - a women that didn’t want to become one, and an unloved child.. who does it benefit?

>Even if it is a person, you completely fail to take into account the mother as a living human being.

Last I checked the mother chose to engage in an activity she knew could result in a baby. Not sure why she is obviated from the need for personal responsibility for her decisions. Nor how you justify that kind of callous avoidance of personal responsibility; causing the death of another?

Read through my second paragraph as well.

Basic human need is not an excuse. It is a basic human need that i eat, that doesn't mean I can eat you.

Everyone always wants to avoid personal responsibility.

> Even if it is a person, you completely fail to take into account the mother as a living human being

The point is that if the fetus has reached personhood stage then it becomes a matter of dealing with a conflict of freedoms between two people. Too often both sides in abortion debates fail to realize this.

> Of course no sane person talks about aborting in like the 8th months or so

Ahh, but note that all your bodily autonomy arguments apply just as well at 8 months as they do at 3 months, maybe even more so as the fetus is having a bigger impact on the woman's body at that point.