Your whole post says you want to define a fair point at which an abortion should be ok, then you end by saying: "I believe in the right to choose at any point during a pregnancy, because bodily autonomy is not something others should be able to dictate"

This flip-flopping (on both sides) is why this argument will never be settled. FWIW, I was adopted, and if my mother "terminated my pregnancy early" with the intention of adopting me out, that would be incredibly selfish of her because of the huge chance of medical complications. If a mother plans on letting the kid be adopted - she should carry it to term. If she wants to terminate the pregnancy, then do that. *It is NOT a win-win to birth a child that prematurely just because she wants - as you say - "control over her bodily autonomy" *

There should always be medical exceptions to any abortion law. But that isn't to say that these same late-term exceptions should be applied to healthy children, nor should it be juxtaposed to say that healthy children can be removed at any time just because the mother doesn't want to carry to term. If she is pro-choice - make the choice: abort or birth.

Like many others you are not actually arguing about what the real abortion argument is about. Among those arguing the argument, they agree that at a certain point abortions for healthy children should be not be allowed.

And FWIW, OP would never fall into the "20 week" rule so it shouldn't be a slap in the face for her. There are already exceptions in place for medical abortions. That will not change.

Drives me UP THE WALL that people argue this SO PASSIONATELY without actually knowing the full scope of what they are even arguing about!