 this in a more unkind way but I will be polite (for once) - also do not understand my sense of humour. Let's just say I am a cynic on politics and leave it at that?
I actually couldn't give a monkeys who wins. It is up to Americans to decide their leader and I will respect the decision either way. It is their election. I might discuss and criticise (I've criticised Trump many times) but ultimately there is a time when it becomes their thing, and I become merely just another wanker in a completely different country telling them 'who they should and should not' vote for? You need to be able to judge when to step back. Excise some decorum.
On this matter you and I are in agreement. If Trump wins re-election (fairly) then so be it. That's who America is now. I'll give them a mulligan for 2016 since I assume some didn't realize what a Trump presidency would look like, but they don't get a pass should they vote him in a second time.
I think it's an extremely admirable thing you and your wife did. I don't think many, including myself, could make the same choice. And yes, I view it as a choice. It's not simply a matter of it being easy for the parents, but for some not wanting a child/person to live in extreme discomfort or duress. There are instances where a fetus has severe chromosomal abnormalities that usually result in death late into the pregnancy or a short, painful life days after labour. We often say that the most humane thing to do for pets with little to no quality of life anymore is to put them down. For some, the compassion we show our pets should be extended to fetuses not long for this world.
The other matter revolves around whether your values or choice on this matter should supersede the choice of other would be parents. 
Why does the child have rights to exist if the mother is unable to obtain the morning after pill within a 24 hour time frame? That seems extremely arbitrary. How does the forcibly fertilized egg have no rights for the first 24 hours?

Outlawing abortion doesn't make abortion go away.
Outlawing abortion would be a disaster.
Science for starters. Human DNA means without a SHADOW of a doubt you are a human being. Just because a human is in a different state of development (the womb) does not mean it is NOT a human being.
I must also comment on this statement that science supports a particular stance on abortion. It doesn't. Science tells us what happens, it is descriptive, not what we should do about it. Science tells us when a heart starts beating, when the lungs fill with air for the first time, what genes are expressed first in the fertilized egg, when the fetus develops arms, how the body form develops, when the brain starts forming, etc. But it doesn't tell us when a fetus has become so much like a human being that it should be granted human rights (i.e when abortion turns to murder). That is a question more for philosophers or doctors or politicians. And as long as "human being" isn't precisely defined, or the definition is contested, we will never agree on when abortion is okay.
I don't personally have a good answer on abortion and when it should be okay. I definitely don't have a problem with terminating fertilized eggs and I definitely have a problem with killing babies, so somewhere inbetween here, somewhere in these nine months of gestation, abortion goes from being okay to being not okay in my opinion.
Additionally, it is not a distinct switch from "okay" to "not okay". The fetus gradually develops into a human being, so it is a continuum more than a binary thing. This means, of course, that the time when abortion is okay should be pushed well into the "okay" range to be sure.
And all of this of course relies on the premise that as soon as a fetus develops sufficient similarities to a human being, in terms of shape and cognitive abilities, etc, it is a human being and thus deserving of the same protections as other human beings. The religious idea that the fertilized egg is a human being simply because it contains human DNA or because it has the potential to become a human being, is nonsensical to me. If any lump of cells with human DNA should be sacred we are committing murder every time we remove a mole, blast a tumor with radiation, or wank off. And the reason human beings have special protection is because human beings are different from anything else, thus granting those same rights to something that can potentially develop into a human being, is just diluting the uniqueness of human beings and the special rights we have. It is akin to valuing the parts that make up a car equally high as the developed car itself, basically dismissing the value of actually building the car and the synergy of all these parts working together.
Lastly, we shouldn't dismiss the feelings involved when it comes to terminating a fetus (yes, it isn't a case of "killing an unborn baby" because a "baby" is the name a fetus gets when it is born and "killing" isn't a term for destroying lumps of cells not considered to be separate living entities - so "killing an unborn baby" is deliberate corruption of language to appeal to emotions), both in the could-be-mother and could-be-father. Feelings starts developing as soon as a woman is pregnant and abortion is rarely a trifling matter. This should inform our discourse when discussing abortion, and also be an argument when discussing when abortion is okay - if we accept too late abortion that can lead to more sorrow.
The abortion thing is one of those archaic issues that was supposedly resolved decades ago, but old men in power with outdated idealogy want to go backwards on it.
It's said a lot, but it speaks volumes that the majority of these men could not care less about what happens after birth.
September 29th can't come soon enough.
I have called them scum as well and stand by my statements.  Just scum. They're losers with no jobs and no purpose so they think this gives them a purpose. If Trump wins because of them it'll make his victory all the sweeter.
The extra weekly $300 in unemployment that Trump signed over from FEMA has already run out in my state and others. It was only able to run for 5 weeks here. It was always said it wouldn’t last long but I thought it would at least last into October. What a disappointment.
So you support an ideology that finds no problem with the idea that life only begins at birth? Yet 38 states will charge someone with murder if a pregnant mother is attacked and the unborn child dies. So clearly the unborn DO have rights. So if a mother wants to keep the child, it's murder. But if she doesn't it's not? How is this consistent? One person is NOT entitled to this kind of power over another, women's rights be damned.
Last year alone, over 600,000 abortions were conducted in America alone. Since Roe v Wade, the amount of abortions conducted in America is well over 30 million. Compare that to the Trail of tears, which most people feel is the worst thing the American government ever did, where 60,000 Native Americans were killed. The numbers don't lie, abortion IS the biggest black eye in America history.
Spartalizumab or placebo in combination with dabrafenib and trametinib in patients with V600-mutant melanoma: exploratory biomarker analyses from a randomized phase 3 trial (COMBI-i).
Istituto Nazionale Tumori, IRCCS, Fondazione "G. Pascale", Naples, Italy.
Background: The randomized phase 3 COMBI-i trial did not meet its primary endpoint of improved progression-free survival (PFS) with spartalizumab plus dabrafenib and trametinib (sparta-DabTram) vs placebo plus dabrafenib and trametinib (placebo-DabTram) in the overall population of patients with unresectable/metastatic V600-mutant melanoma. This prespecified exploratory biomarker analysis was performed to identify subgroups that may derive greater treatment benefit from sparta-DabTram.
Methods: In COMBI-i (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02967692), 532 patients received spartalizumab 400 mg intravenously every 4 weeks plus dabrafenib 150 mg orally two times daily and trametinib 2 mg orally one time daily or placebo-DabTram. Baseline/on-treatment pharmacodynamic markers were assessed via flow cytometry-based immunophenotyping and plasma cytokine profiling. Baseline programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status and T-cell phenotype were assessed via immunohistochemistry; V600 mutation type, tumor mutational burden (TMB), and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) via DNA sequencing; gene expression signatures via RNA sequencing; and CD4/CD8 T-cell ratio via immunophenotyping.
Results: Extensive biomarker analyses were possible in approximately 64% to 90% of the intention-to-treat population, depending on sample availability and assay. Subgroups based on PD-L1 status/TMB or T-cell inflammation did not show significant differences in PFS benefit with sparta-DabTram vs placebo-DabTram, although T-cell inflammation was prognostic across treatment arms. Subgroups defined by V600K mutation (HR 0.45 (95% CI 0.21 to 0.99)), detectable ctDNA shedding (HR 0.75 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.96)), or CD4/CD8 ratio above median (HR 0.58