The numerous biased assumptions based on "what I have heard," or "what I have not heard," in this thread illustrate how the topic of abortion can rarely be discussed without people lining up on either side of political barricades.
Jack of Hearts provided an excellent answer that pointed out gollum's bias: Unborn babies are not to be considered among "the living."
People who come to the defense and aid of one particular group of the living are not somehow bound to do the same with all groups, and if they do not, it neither diminshes them or their cause.
Yes, it would admirable of those who protest against abortion to offer aide to unwed mothers and the infants they keep, and there is nothing in this thread that adequately supports the notions that they do or do not, but why are they morally required to?
If one's belief is that abortion is murder, one, obviously, doesn't believe there is even an amoral, let alone an equally moral choice to be made. For them, preventing a mother from aborting her unborn child is essentially the same as preventing one adult from murdering another. Since abortion is legal in this country and murder is not there is a clear legal distinction between the two, but since when does legal equal moral? Very few would suggest that if I prevented someone's murder I was therefore responsible for their welfare.
Abortion is such a difficult topic to discuss because the clearly convinced on either side have no tolerance for ambiguity.
For all the thought I've given this subject I still don't know where I come down on it, but I have certainly made up my mind that the vast majority of people who are against abortion are not engaged in a war on women or trying to confiscate women's reproductive organs and make them slaves to some Aged White Patriarchy.
While I sympathize with certain women who feel the need to have abortions and the notion that they must have some control over their own bodies, I despise the argument that a fetus is nothing more than a lump of human cells; a fatty tumor to be removed with little to no consideration.
I don't have much use for politicians who profess to be adamantly Pro-Life but who will compromise on abortion in the case of rape, not because of their compromise, but for the basis of it. Like most politicians they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
I can't imagine, in essence, forcing a woman who has been raped to bear the progeny of her rapist, even though I understand the child itself is innocent. There are times when a choice must be made between two victims, and in such a case I chose the woman.
I can imagine a family in which a foolish young teenager has found herself pregnant and the fear that her condition will "ruin" her life. Fortunately, such a situation didn't happen in my family, and I would like to believe that my wife an I would have inisted that my daughter bear the child and give it up for adoption, but I know it would never be so simple, and I might, very possibly, have advocated abortion.
At the same time with birth control pills and devices being as widely accessable as it is today, I am disgusted by the callous stupidity of women who have multiple abortions.
I am also disgusted by people who advocate the legality of late term abortions and partial birth abortions, and close their eyes and minds to doctors who kill babies that survive an abortion or who, like the monster Kermit Gosnell, run a butcher shop for profit.
In the end, the postions of the absolutely convinced on either side assure that this will remain a contentious subject for years to come, but I have to say that I have far less of a moral problem with the views of absolute Pro-Lifers than I do with their Pro-Choice counterparts.