That's an even worse defense of abortion.
I probably choose a somewhat poor wording, but I think it's just a restatement of one of the main arguments for having abortion legal, which is that the mother should have the right to choose what goes on with her body. Early on in pregnancy, I view that right as overriding the fetus's right to life. That's
what I meant by significant imposition: not just tangible things like having to deal with morning sickness and the eventual birth, but what I view as a suppression of those rights. There's no need to impose on that right at all
in the case of a toddler. That's what I meant.
Now, I realize that you disagree with the "override" part of that explanation, and that's the part of the argument I'm actually sympathetic to. But to rephrase what I said before, I think if you don't at least see why the "pregnant mother" and "I have a toddler" situations are different enough to at least narrow the gap significantly, that I don't understand.
that a fetus is life is countered by saying life doesn't matter, only convenience.
think that the fetus doesn't matter by any stretch. I view it as a situation where both mother and fetus have rights that are in direct conflict. My valuation the mother comes out on top early in the pregnancy and (because both the mother's "share" has decreased and the fetus's "share" has increased) the fetus comes out on top late in the pregnancy -- but concluding the first part doesn't mean I put the fetus at zero or even close to zero.
Edit: And to tie that view to what I said in the first part of this response, late in the pregnancy I also view abortion prohibitions as a significant imposition on the mother and her rights -- but in this case, that imposition is worth it because it's for a greater good. Her rights aren't at zero there either, just less than the fetus's.