Anti-choice

In 99.9% of all cases, it was their choice to get pregnant. Also, reproductive freedom is not the right to murder your child, it is the right to reproduce. Once you are pregnant, you have reproduced. A violation of reproductive rights would be rape, not abortion bans.

I'm not even sure 99.9% of all sex was their choice, much less 99.9% of all pregnancies, and if you think 99.9% of women seeking abortion do so for a pregnancy they chose...I'll be charitable and assume you meant something other than what you said.

As to getting pregnant = reproducing, cool, so once they're pregnant the job of reproduction is done and their obligation is over. Any lingering remnants are irrelevant and can be disposed of worry free, since all reproduction entails is getting pregnant and that's already happened.

Forced abortion would be a violation of reproductive rights, same as forced gestation, because both of those force an action on someone who didn't chose it. Luckily for the religious right, "reproductive rights" aren't officially a thing, and therefore cannot be violated. How convenient for them.

Speaking of violations, rape is a violation, but not of reproduction. Not all rapes result in pregnancy. (Hell, some republican talking heads have made the argument that pregnancy from rape isn't possible.) But if a pregnancy did result from rape, abortion would remedy that issue.

When abortion isn't allowed, it isn't the rapist who violates a woman's reproductive freedom, it is the law forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term against her will. (Unless she seeks whatever help she can find in the shadows, where reproductive healthcare is being pushed, and therefore places her at a much higher risk of complications.)

People who think the categorical prohibition of abortion is a humanitarian act are deluding themselves. During alcohol prohibition the government cared so much about protecting people from the evils of drinking that they voluntarily handed production over to the criminal underground and deliberately poisoned industrial ethanol, all in the name of saving people from themselves. It worked so well that it resulted in more American deaths than the Vietnam conflict, made Al Capone rich and did absolutely nothing to stop alcohol consumption. But hey, at least the prohibitionists got to pat themselves on the back for being such morally upright people and forcing their beliefs on everyone else in the most misguided, myopic way possible, despite how catastrophically counter-productive it was. That's worth something. And it's good to see that proud tradition of blind pigheadedness being continued in abortion-prohibitionists today.

Except in cases of rape, the choice was theirs.

Now, to be fair, I think writing the law so there is only an exception for rape would be problematic to enforce and have the unintended consequence of women who weren't raped crying rape so that they can get an abortion. So I don't favor restricting abortion based on it.

No regulation system is going to be perfect. All abortions are a bad decision, but they may be the least bad decision of the bad decisions available to the woman. Either she was raped, her birth control failed, there are medical complications, or she was just plain careless and doesn't like the consequences of her actions. So something already went horribly wrong by the time she makes that choice. And those varying circumstances are too complicated to legislate. I accept the fact that in many cases the woman will make the wrong choice, but that's the price of leaving it available for those who truly need it.

Aside from your first sentence, which you thankfully contradicted in the third paragraph, I don't disagree. In fact your point about the problem of ascertaining motivation is spot on. But the point of bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom is that no reason need be given in the first place...the caveat to that being (imho) that a fetus far enough along to survive outside the womb could just as easily be induced early as scraped and scrapped. In those cases it feels comfortable to say "sorry mom, you have a right to get that thing out of your body, but not to kill it if it can breathe on its own".

I appreciate that many people feel that a zygote is a person that deserves to be counted in census surveys, given an SSN, etc; and I understand that some people feel that yeeting an 8 month old fetus is okie dokie. The outer edges of the bell-curve don't matter to me and shouldn't matter to the argument as it pertains to policy affecting everyone. For that reason, it makes sense that 1st trimester abortions be universally allowed, 3rd trimester abortions be universally prohibited (except possibly for premature medically induced live delivery, or termination in the case of complications that I trust doctors to recognize more than myself).

A fetus is considered "viable" at 23-24 weeks. 22 weeks puts it on the border. If that were to be used as a milestone marker, elective abortion up to ~20 could be permitted. Conveniently, this is just past the 4.5 month mark--halfway through a typical gestation. So up to 4.5 months, abort. After 5.5 months, induced birth. Between 4.5-5.5 months, induce birth and see what happens? I feel this ~1-month range is where the conversation should be centered--not the agendas of 2 intransigent, self-aggrandized extremes bent on all or nothing.

I know this is well beyond the scope of the meme. If I have a point, it's that a woman should get the majority vote when it comes to her own body because she's the one closest to the issue. If her rights come into conflict with those of a fetus incapable of living independently from her, the woman's seniority breaks the tie. (No one need embrace this view, or even accept it, it's just what feels right to me.) Until this issue is nailed down, which is to say "until the heat death of the universe", the phrase JUST SAY NO TO SEX WITH PRO-LIFERS is as valid today as it was when it was coined.