No, no I am not saying that. You were the one who believes we should remove religion

So how is evolution an argument against abortion? This should be good.

The whole idea of natural selection is based around having more children than you necessarily need to increase the chance of at least one of your off spring holding some allele which is better for your environment to help better the genome.
Furthermore males have evolved with the purpose of fighting over females in order to prove themselves superior genetically and causing greater adaptation through the means of sexual selection on top of natural selection.
Because of this women's evolutionary purpose is simply to reproduce and are not meant to work in competitive environments because it's much more effective for them to simply work as vessels for conceiving the more vigorous amongst the males' offspring.
Because if a male can prove themself as the better man and then impregnate several women at least one of those women would be healthy and if any of those women had some undesirable traits carried into their children, the children would be culled by natural selection either way.
So basically, a females evolutionary purpose is to reproduce which means that in makes no sense to have some sort of infallible right to terminating a pregnancy.

"The whole idea of natural selection is based around having more children than you necessarily need to increase the chance of at least one of your off spring holding some allele which is better for your environment to help better the genome"

More or less. I'll grant that.

"Because of this women's evolutionary purpose is simply to reproduce and are not meant to work in competitive environments because it's much more effective for them to simply work as vessels for conceiving the more vigorous amongst the males' offspring"

That's not an evolutionary principle, it's a social one. What if women working in competitive environments have more opportunities to be around men, giving them more potential mates to choose from?

"Because if a male can prove themself as the better man and then impregnate several women at least one of those women would be healthy and if any of those women had some undesirable traits carried into their children, the children would be culled by natural selection either way."

Undesirable traits are somewhat subjective. What one person sees as an undesirable trait another person may see as desirable. Also, undesirable traits may not be obvious or perceptible to potential mates, early on or even at all.

"So basically, a females evolutionary purpose is to reproduce which means that in makes no sense to have some sort of infallible right to terminating a pregnancy"

The rest of your comment doesn't even mention terminating a pregnancy, so it doesn't really tie into that.

"Undesirable traits are somewhat subjective. What one person sees as an undesirable trait another person may see as desirable. Also, undesirable traits may not be obvious or perceptible to potential mates, early on or even at all." That's my point because they aren't obvious you have children and see how they fit into society rather than trying to choose through artificial selection. Mother nature, God, the law of the jungle, natural selection whatever you want to claim it is has a much better opinion on who should die than some random chick who got knocked up by accident.

"The rest of your comment doesn't even mention terminating a pregnancy, so it doesn't really tie into that."

Yes, the rest of my comment doesn't mention terminating a pregnancy because it's something unnatural and makes no sense to be a so called "human right".

"Yes, the rest of my comment doesn't mention terminating a pregnancy because it's something unnatural and makes no sense to be a so called "human right"."

The discussion was about abortion. Your reply didn't mention abortion. Just because you don't think abortion should be considered a human right is irrelevant to that fact.

Well, give a reason that abortion should be a human right.

I wasn't trying to make the argument that it was. I do think that bodily autonomy should be a human right and I would say that abortion ties into bodily autonomy, though.

Bodily autonomy should be a human right because people should have the freedom to make choices about their own bodies and their own medical decisions without being told what they have to do by a government or other group of people. I'm not saying that as a blanket statement, there are exceptions.

I personally believe bodily autonomy relies on the belief that #1. Free will exists and #2. Free will is directly intertwined with the divine.
When there's no belief in the human soul we're simply a species, and if we're a species there's no individual, we simply make up one population, one body.
Bodily autonomy relies on the belief in the individual, and for every individual to hold purpose there has to be such thing as intelligent design.
On a completely secular standpoint everyone's purpose is simply to either be culled from the genome if inferior, or to add on to the genome if superior.
Life simply amounts to whether or not you're a better specimen for your environment in comparison to the other guy.