system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: People who take a halfway, “sometimes” stance on a woman’s right to abortion are invariably wrong.

To clarify, I don’t have a specific view on the morality of abortion. Would I have one myself, no; but on the legal side I’m pro choice because I don’t believe that I or anyone else should be entitled to decide whether someone else should be allowed to have one based on moral judgments that are always relative and subjective. That said, I am not posting to argue for either the 100% “pro-life” stance OR the 100% “pro-choice” stance. Rather I’m here to make a point on the wishy-washy stance that “abortion should only be legal if certain conditions (e.g. the mother was raped, incest is involved, etc.) are met.” I think this view contradicts itself. Allow me to explain.

If you think a fetus is an innocent life with a right to be born, it stands to reason that you think abortion is the murder of an innocent life.

But if you think abortion should be legally permissible in scenarios in which you pity the mother or believe the child may be deformed (incest), you are saying that it’s okay to murder deformed babies, or babies that inconvenience/emotionally harm otherwise “chaste” women whose pregnancy was not their fault.

Therefore it appears to me that it’s not the life of the fetus that is sacred to you (after all, why would it be justifiable to murder any baby for someone else’s problems or for something that is not their fault?) but the “punishment” of women who failed to be chaste. After all, the circumstances of a child’s conception should make little difference if you truly believe that abortion is murder. Murdering babies can’t be “sometimes” okay, if that is what you genuinely believe abortion to be.

My conclusion here is that those who take a “sometimes” stance do so not because they genuinely and wholeheartedly believe abortion is murder (like the 100% pro-life folks) but because they wish to impose repercussions on women whom they view as promiscuous or irresponsible. These are the women who “must” carry to full term. That is why I see this stance as disingenuous.

Change my view.

EDIT to clarify that I am referring to social reasons to permit/not permit abortion (not trying to debate the ethics of late-stage abortion, for example).
gpt
I think for pro-life people, it's not necessarily the fact that they consider abortion to be murder *alone*, but rather the fact that they consider the right of the fetus to live to be above the right of the mother to choose. Meanwhile pro-choice people believe the reverse. 

If you look at it on this comparative scale, a decision of the more important between two fundamental rights, then it makes total sense that context can change someone's view on it. For instance, a pro-life person might believe that a fetus's right to life supersedes a woman's right to choose in most cases because the mother already *had* the ability to choose not to have sex, or to choose to take better precautions against getting pregnant, and thus she doesn't deserve a 'second chance' at the expense of the fetus's right to life. But the same person might feel it's different in the case of rape when the woman didn't have that choice to being with, and that in such a case, the woman's right to choose does come above the fetus's right to live.