You assume a great deal here, and I will do my best to address this comment as it is.

First off, thank you for replying in a way that opens up this discussion, without resorting to some sort of verbal barrage or demeaning of my character for such beliefs, and encouraging debate thereof.

For the majority of my life I agreed in abortions, that its the womans choice, and her place to decide. After the recent roe v wade overturning last year I began to look more seriously into it, and what all the commotion was about.

I have heard so many and continue to hear mainly emotionally charged arguments and circular ethical stances within the "pro-choice" community.
Believe me I am open minded to hearing all postions on the matter, and continue to be, however none of the logical arguments are particularly sound. Your position of 'personhood' being legally defined at birth is so far amongst the best stances, however even so falls quite short of being convincing.

Now I will respond to your comment directly : I never said woman "dont deserve body autonomy rights", nor do I hold a moral stance as such. Woman have the choice and freedom to decide upon a partner, and have full body autonomy in this regard. It is her choice of whom she allows to enter her, and whom she chooses as a partner to do so. When a woman consents to sex, she inextricably consents to the possibility of being impregnated. This seems to be something that is majorly overlooked in the pro-abortion circles.

If she becomes pregnant, from her choices , she now must accept her body is changing again, and once gestation phase begins, just like her monthly period, she has no choice on the matter. She already made her choice by consenting to sexual intercourse.

Furthermore I fully believe she has the right to birth control at this phase. Let me also include that when one is graped/forced into this I believe in prosecuting the male who violated her body autonomy in this way as well. Likewise if she knows this occured, I do believe in early stage abortions, but if she fails to act, then she must bare the child to term as then the fetus will become a human, which is not fair to jointly punish the child for the fathers criminal misconduct. I also am aware this kind of situation is terrible for the mother and there should be greater measures of support for her in this case.

This leads now into my main premise on the matter; A woman has all the freedom of choice prior to gestation, however once she receives the sperm that is the completion of her choice. She is now responsible + accountable to/for the human life growing inside her. To take unnatural action otherwise at this point is akin to denying an inevitable emergence of a human existing. The definition of such a denial of life is 'killing', and the legal consequence of killing another human is being liable to charges of murder in the court of law.

Likewise all thru out history it has been a common tactic of oppressors to dehumanize a group for political sway. Such was the case of slaves in america [3/5th vote], jews in germany [yellow star] , and so on and so forth. This is now a common argument justifying the procedure to artificially induce early labor.

The extent of trauma on every level of the womans body from this kind of surgery is absolutely life changing. Their body is literally meant to have children, so its my "practical" opinion the law should protect their rights in this way.

Not allow them some special priviledge to deny life to a human being they no longer want to be responsible for. Hence the islam example, which I was stating because I disagree with that as a special priviledge as well.

Per usual I expect many downvotes and perhaps emotionally charged hyterics or whatever. However this is my stance on the matter and likewise I believe as a man I do have a say on this, because it can and has affected my own life.