We seem to be going around in circles here, Rhys. Once again, no child is being killed when a woman aborts a foetus at 12 weeks or earlier.

Yes indeed, that foetus might miss out on a life, but the mother has about 400 chances in her life to create a baby, so she might well be in a position later on in life, where she is able to raise it, so why not raise that one? Why does it have to be the first one, according to you? She has multiple opportunities, so clearly there is no good reason to insist on the first one, IMO. It really is not up to you or I do tell her what to do, but her decision. So far you have not named a single convincing reason why your opinion is the one which should be enforced on women.

Rhys, it's not a dichotomy of 'women's right to chose' v 'valuing life'. Many decisions to have an abortion are by people who value life including reproductive aspects to life.

Dear Yabby,
if you think its wrong to kill a human after birth, or before birth but after 12 weeks gestation, then it is up to you to justify why its ok to kill them before 12 weeks gestation.
All the arguments about sentience and "hope and dreams for the future" or the ability to feel pain, are just a smoke screen as far as I can see.
By killing any human, you are simply depriving them of the opportunity to live out the rest of their life. This is no different for an eleven week foetus, or a 20 week foetus, or a newborn or a middle aged man or woman.
As far as "the 400 chances" to have a baby are concerned, these are not babies at all. They are simply one half of the genetic material that could possibly make up a baby. they do not exist as an individual and hence cannot be classified as human any more than a sperm cell can.
By your reasoning it would be ok to kill a five year old, as long as you had an intention of having another child to replace them.

*then it is up to you to justify why its ok to kill them before 12 weeks gestation.*

I think I have already done that Rhys, perhaps you did not understand what I wrote. A human what? Some claim that a human embryo should already be given protection and the rights of a person, as it already a newly formed genetic being. You clearly do not agree with that, as your point about embryos in laboratories made clear. Now you want to give every human foetus the rights of a person, even though it is not a person, only a potential person. No functioning human brain makes it a human organism, not yet a person. My point is that embryos are overabundant, often without parents which could raise it or even want to raise it, often aborted by nature. As Darwin pointed out, potential beings of any species are created in far greater numbers than can ever survive. Yet another foetus can be produced, to replace it at any time.

So it is a question where do we draw a line in the sand, as to whom should be protected. As a society we have largely decided that people should be protected, that the foetus is the responsibility of the mother, if she does not want to or cannot raise it, there is really no good reason why she should be forced to do so. Why produce children which the parents cannot raise, or educate? Why produce children that are often not even loved, but resented? Personally I campaign for less suffering in the world and the world would be a better place if all children were loved and wanted.

So 12 weeks or the first trimester, is a compromise which we have reached as a society, which does not satisfy the highly religious claiming the sanctity of the embryo, nor does it satisfy you, but it has the approval of around 85-90% of the population, as to where to draw that line. I agree with the majority.

Meanwhile the adoption waiting list grows. What a repulsive society feminist create.

Treating women as incubators is pretty repulsive too, runner.