liahamil

it's not 99.5%

It doesn't matter if it is consensual anyways.

What about cases where the child would die after birth? Where the mother's life is at risk? Where they are both likely to die?

If I punch someone in the kidney, I could be held legally responsible for their medical bills and for assault, but there is no law that says I have to give them my kidney, even if you think there should be, just as there is no law that I have to give up my body for any other choices made (or not made in 5% of cases)

Conjoined twins are usually separated in utero or as soon as they are born. The only exception is conjoined heart twins where neither would survive the surgery most likely.

Blood is actually shared with a fetus and they are "using" my uterus. Not having it killed, letting it die, if it is viable I say have a c-section and let whatever happens--happen. Some abortions are as simple as an injection to force the fetus to evacuate, and the others are used in extreme situations (such as threat of the mother or fetus or both dying during the process of carrying or birthing the fetus). You can't force me to give blood, or donate plasma (even though my blood is given back to me), so you shouldn't be able to force me to carry a fetus and let it use my body and take my bodily resources for 9 months.

Even if my 3 month old toddler was dying and needed my blood or kidney or other part of my body to live, I still would not legally have to give it to them because of bodily autonomy. It's not just financial resources. You cannot FORCE someone to give up part of their body or have it be used for something.

Also, as the population rises, we will not be able to support feeding that many people with the way we currently produce food. FYI, Correlation does NOT equal causation, just because the population was rising in that time does not mean it caused it. 

If you are arguing that she has a responsibility to the "other person" in the situation, she does not, as evidenced by bodily autonomy. It is her body, that fetus is using her body to survive, without her it would die, much like someone with a failing kidney if I do not give them one of mine. 

As minimum wage rises, people with less experience or less legal privileges (people under 18 have to have more oversight, work less hours), are being overlooked. This causes younger people to be be unable to get a first job. An effective minimum wage (binding price floor), makes the companies total costs go up, companies look for ways to mitigate this by giving employees less hours (if you don't work a certain amount of hours they're not required to give you benefits), and by cutting benefits for full time employees. This does not benefit the businesses or their workers. By allowing the minimum wage to be negotiable people can work for nothing while they are being trained, or work for less if they are less experienced. This allows more inexperienced workers to get into the job market without displacing experienced workers. 

My stance is that if you can take the fetus out and it wouldn't survive on it's own, without medical help, then abortion is okay. Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one's own body without external influence or coercion. This is the reason why you can't be forced to give blood, organs or other parts of your body, even if it would save someone else's life. We even give this right to corpses (as you have to be an organ doner). By being against abortion you are taking away this fundamental right for women, and for what? So that the population can grow out of control?