Medical procedures are between the patient and their medical professional. It should be private.

I think that woman have always had abortions. The thing is now medical science can do it very safely unlike so called backyard abortions, including other professional support like counseling.
So the issue really is should the state have the ability to outlaw a safe medical procedure that has been developed through science?

I have the power to create human life. Though I'm not the only one, this power belongs to me. To create a life is through my consent, my agreement, my will. My body and my life would be used, taxed, stressed, threatened and risked for its completion. The same risks possible for any of us with this ability. If I decide and choose NOT to use my power and ability to create and grow a life inside of MY body, with all its risk (both internal and external) THAT IS MY PREROGATIVE. If other beings do not have this ability, THAT IS NOT MY CONCERN. And their concerns don't concern me. No law or otherwise would compel me to relinquish a power that's solely mine. If internal and external factors favored finishing the art, I would likely complete it. In the case of rape, incest, poverty, or risk of life on either side, however, my power is exercised for a vast multitude of GOOD reasons and that's the end of it. I need not give further explanation to anyone unless I choose to. If you want the scientific elaboration of what's going on at every stage of fetal development regarding what's subjectively considered personhood at several levels, try the "Science vs Abortion" podcast. This is my personal view of it.

When "human" life begins is an interesting question because the chain of living cells is not broken between generations. (A man is alive, he produces sperm which is a living organism, this then becomes an embyro and then an adult human in a continuous process which always includes living cells).

The point at which we call this living entity a human (or a person) is probably quite arbitrary and based on how attached we get to it at any stage of development.

Modern day parents expecting a child can get attached at a very early stage of pregnancy, but before antibiotics were invented (and infant mortality was much higher) it was common to not name a child under 2yo and not mourn them if they died.

While I think the question of when human life begins is relevant to abortion, it is by no means the only thing that is relevant, neither is it the most important.

This is a contrived issue based on misinformation promulgated by religious sects and opportunistic politicians. Just as with the Big Lie of The Election Was Stolen, similarly, Abortion is Murder is shouted without an ounce of truth to it. Yet, broad swaths have been brainwashed, and act on their delusion to the detriment of everyone else. This is a problem of information, abuse of power and the ability to manipulate the gullible.

Digging still deeper, this is here as a psychological warfare device aided by Putin. That it goes unopposed by our mighty defense department begs the question of why. (Perhaps they approve of this manipulation for their own reasons.)

The no. 1 killer of women, globally, is pregnancy. Too often a life might be started at conception but then two real lives are lost at giving birth.
The real problem here is context. What makes the most virulent, toxic invasive species on this planet soooo damned important. My late partner asked her 2nd graders "what is more important, people or dirt?' We here all know the answer. Too bad most just refuse to get it.

I think, from a strategic perspective, if for no other reason, “When does human life begin?” is the wrong question.

To start with, it can never be answered to everyone’s satisfaction, especially while people are under the spell of the anticipated consequences of winning or losing that argument.

Secondly, if there is a scientific answer to that question, if you happen to be pro-choice that answer isn’t likely to support your cause. Lying to oneself is never beneficial. There is no point between gamete and neonate at which that tissue is not living. And there is no point at which it is not human. Don’t play a losing game.

There is no question whether fetuses survive abortion. They don’t.

But the deliberate ending of life is not limited to murder. Compassionate humans euthanize beloved pets when circumstances warrant, and hope to be treated as humanely when and if their own circumstances might warrant.

Society generally accepts the ending of another life for purposes of self defense, and as punishment for the most heinous crimes. The point here being that it is the circumstances of the killing, rather than the killing itself, that dictates the acceptability.

The argument that fetuses aren’t “guilty” of any offense is not germane. Euthanasia is equally absent of a guilt motive. There are circumstances in the course of human existence when adults must make difficult decisions about the life of other living creatures, for food, for compassion, for justice, and for reproductive sovereignty.

Life began 4.28 billion years ago. All of it ends sooner or later. Meanwhile all societies designate certain circumstances under which the ending of life is acceptable. Murder is not one of them.

But the issue is not life.

It is humanity that is at stake.

The right question is “How human do we want to be?”

I agree with every pro-choice comment that has been offered.

That said, how can anyone not understand that allowing government to control this very personal choice can lead to all kinds of unintended consequences.

As climate change advances, one of those consequences could very well be forced abortions and birth control.

The foetus is not a legal entity until birth…that is when a human life begins in my opinion. By stating that I do not imply that it is desirable to abort right up until birth, but that purely factually that’s my opinion on when a foetus becomes a bone fide person in its own right and until then it has no actual rights.

I do not believe at any stage of development a foetus has rights equal to that of the mother, and for whatever reason, should the mother decide that she does not wish to give birth to the foetus she should, in consultation with her physician, be at liberty to avail of a medical abortion. To prevent a mother from such a termination and therefore force her to give birth is wrong on both moral and human rights grounds. It’s immoral to make an unwilling woman be a mother against her will and to force her to give birth to an unwanted and possibly unloved child. It is the birthright of every child to be loved and wanted by their mother, and it’s certainly against the woman’s human rights and dignity to essentially be forced by the state to be an incubator, with no regard for her mental or physical health.

Up to what date should an abortion be available is something a bit harder to quantify, because it depends a lot on why the abortion is being sought, but the earlier the better is of course the most desirable, and preferably before there’s any question of the foetus being viable outside of the womb. However, sometimes it’s impossible to know of serous birth defects or even of pregnancy at all in some circumstances of underage or immature women especially in rape or abuse cases, so there would have to be discretion for circumstances built into any governing timescale.

Her body, her choice.
There's no compromise on this.