After reading the marketing of evil. The word, choice, is one of their catch words. It's said to deceive you.
Conceptually, aren't there at least two species of abortion?
I mean there are "elective" abortions, if you will, where the procedure is used in a sort of retro-contraceptive context, for want of a better term, (clearly the kind of abortion that is problematic for those who value the sanctity of life above all else), and there are "necessary" abortions, where mom's life is threatened, or a gestating fetus is the result of incest or rape, or incestual rape.
I appreciate the latter species of abortion is not "necessary" in the true sense of the word, and there may even be some latitude in the definition of "elective", but perhaps these terms might help to focus the issue a little better. That's why I employ them.
If we're talking about "necessary" abortions, I would hazard most people, regardless of their political stripe, would probably oppose their complete prohibition.
However, "elective" abortions are a root of significant division in our society. And this brings me to the issue of whether reproduction is a right.
If there is a reproductive right, isn't there a corollary right not to reproduce? And doesn't that mean the exercise of that right shouldn't be interfered with by the state, or the majority, or anyone?
Or is the right to reproduce not really a right, but simply a side-effect of sexual activity, sometimes wanted, sometimes not wanted? And if that's the case, is sexual activity between unrelated consenting adults something that needs to be regulated by the state, and crucially here in this context, in advance of conception?
That would clearly run counter to a minimally invasive notion of the role of government in a free republic, wouldn't it? And I'd hazard it would run counter to many people's idea of freedom, whether they believe in a right to privacy or not.
Its also uncontroversial to say people will have consensual sex with each other no matter what the state, or the majority, or other people say.
If one of those consenting unrelated adults ends up in a pre-natal state, and the other has no stake in the outcome, shouldn't she be able to elect not to reproduce?
Or does the authority of the post-natal "responsibility" outweigh the authority of the pre-natal "right"? And if so, what is the source of that authority?
Be very interested to hear responses from people that don't seek to donate that authority to their deity.