Not against welfare, am against the welfare state that cripples communities with virulent dependence on the state and contributes to the corrosion of cultural strength. Have engaged in initiatives to support pregnant women so they're less inclined to abort their children due to a sense of helplessness. You have to continue this farce that not only entails the fiction that welfare is relevant to the morality of killing a child, but that pro-life proponents don't care about the welfare of children, because you're under the belief that this bolsters your point.
Whether they can feel pain is irrelevant to both the matter of "bodily autonomy" that you supposedly champion and the fact that they're being grievously murdered.
If this is all about "bodily autonomy" and the choice of a woman in bearing a child (and presumably, raising said child after birth), then it is absolutely irrelevant when the child is killed or whether they feel pain. Whether they're a zygote being vacuumed out, an embryo being scrambled like an egg, a fetus being dismembered, or a newborn being left on a cliff to die of exposure, it would not matter if the actual concern is "bodily autonomy". And by this metric of "pain", you indirectly argue that it would be okay to kill anyone as long as you could dope them up first so they wouldn't even realize what's happening to them-- alternatively, it would be okay to kill someone who happens to have a deficiency that prevents them from feeling pain, hunger, and/or thirst.
It's not as though I can't appreciate that you're arguing that abortion accessibility accomplishes X and also Y-- it's that you extol X such that Y is irrelevant to the point that Y's invocation is farcical and put on.
