Actually, fetuses have opinions, relationships and even have memories. Opinions-Studies have shown that fetus have certain preferences to food, by the time they reach only 15 to 16 weeks. According to an article from "The Guardian" it states ",foetuses will show their sugar appreciation by swallowing more amniotic fluid when it's sweet, and less when bitter" This clearly implies that they have the capability to like and dislike. Showing they are not only capable but in fact DO have opinions. More studies found that fetuses when exposed to garlic in the womb, were more likely to enjoy garlic later in their life. Source: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2014/apr/08/child-food-preferences-womb-pregnancy-foetus-taste-flavours Memories and Relationships- According to the National Library of Medicine, studies have been done to test the ability of fetus to recognize their mothers' voices. In this study they played tape recordings of the mother's voice and of a stranger. In the study it quotes "Fetal heart rate increased in response to the mother's voice and decreased in response to the stranger's;". Clearly, they have to remember what their mother voice sounds like, as well as they clearly have relationship with their mother if the sound of their voice soothes them. Other studies have shown that infants and fetus will prefer their mothers' voices to their fathers, and more studies have been done on the recognition of lullabies sang by mothers. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12741744/ And the comment about hopes and dreams, doesn't really make sense, because infants lack that ability as well, but I think it's safe to assume you wouldn't want it to be legal to abort a 1-year-old infant. I have a question for anyone who wants to answer it. Can anyone tell me when personhood begins, that's consistent, doesn't take away the rights of infants and adults humans, and doesn't value animals over humans, and does discriminate people by size, level of development, environment, degree of dependency?

Arguing from the position of bodily autonomy is easily the most overrated way of trying to defend abortion. The issue is that the opposition believes it's a person. Let's assume this is actually true (it's not). WOW! The implications of that would be huge actually. As a matter of fact we CAN force people to lend their body. It's illegal to stop CPR once you have started. You're gonna get sued and you're gonna deserve it. If you walk into the court room like, "Hey! It's MY body and MY right to not continue CPR. Just because I started CPR doesn't mean I consent to following through with it". They're gonna be like, "lol that's nice." and throw the book at you. That's why this argument never works on people against abortion. It completely misses our opposition's point.