Neutrality is not always a virtue.

No pro-choice advocate believes that the fetus is part of the woman's body. We believe that the rest of the woman's body is rendered, by the state, subservient to the child inside. Being required by law to carry a child is the same as being required by law to donate an organ.

If you shoot someone, and their liver is damaged, and they need a new liver, and yours is a match, the State cannot compel you to give it to them. The State can convict you of murder and even execute you for it, but you have 100% autonomy to your own liver, even if that autonomy selfishly costs another person their life, even if your actions led to that situation.

Even corpses have the right to withhold their organs. Those who falsely call themselves "pro-life" do not argue for mandatory organ donation, even though it would save many lives.

At present, in the U.S., pregnant women have less right to their organs than corpses.

When you compare abortions at 4 weeks vs 25 weeks, you use the word "worse." The idea that *some* abortions could be immoral is ... well, it betrays a bias and an ignorance. Abortions are not easy, they are always heartbreaking, they are often a prospective mother's last (but necessary) option. If you've ever known or loved someone who's had an abortion, you would understand that it is always, *always* a difficult decision. None of them are "worse" than any others. They are medical procedures.

The pro-choice position is that the government has no authority to regulate the medical decisions made between a pregnant person and her doctor. If you consider that position extreme, then you are anti-choice.

And yes, as your first sentence states: I fucking hate you.