No, smells like a sack of crawfish.
How can you even think to proclaim:
What I said is that science is never going to go far enough to eliminate the need for a mother.
1. When that's not what you had claimed in previous conversations.
2. You have no clue what humans will achieve during the rest of our lives, much less beyond.
So the question becomes, what would science have to achieve that would, in your opinion, negate the necessity of abortion as an alternative to an unwanted pregnancy? It seems like your answer is to either assume a less likely level of sophistication of human scientific achievement over the entire future course of human existence, or that you will never support no abortion, regardless of scientific advances. If the latter, then that's a disappointing deviation from prior discussions.