@SW-User When did I ever say that all denied abortions would have horrible childhoods? If you're going to put words in my mouth, at least put the correct ones.
88% of abortions are from women who are already living in poverty or on minimum wage
childhood poverty has strong correlations with a whole host of adverse affects that severely impact their quality of life
The blame isn't just on the lack of access to abortion, because there are several contributing factors.
A few basic lessons here. 1) Anything less than 100% does not mean ALL. 2) Correlation does not equal causation. 3) When there are several factors to consider, that means there are also several possible solutions.
And the welfare of children
absolutely has a bearing on abortion because it’s the
primary reason women choose abortions in the first place. They’re not jumping for joy at the fact that they have to terminate the life of a fetus, they do it in large part because they understand that they cannot provide a quality life for the baby should it be carried to term. >60% of all the women who obtain abortions already have children. Different studies show that the leading reasons women seek out abortions in the first place were related the financial and emotional well-being of their future or current children (~74% according to a study that aggregated multiple polls).
Also, side note, animal mothers killing their own offspring has been documented in hundreds of species, particularly mammals. We obviously can't ask them why, but the most common theories are a lack of food or when the baby is born sick or weak. So the act of abortion might not be so abnormal and unreasonable since humans are not the only species to do it.
Cultures throughout the world also have traditional techniques and recipes for inducing miscarriages. If you read about the history of abortion, there's quite a variety of ways pregnant women had to terminate their fetus. Criminalizing and outlawing the act is a relatively modern invention of society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion
It does make you wonder what the purpose of the law is or should be. Different legal scholars and philosophers will give you different answers. You're trying to argue that it should protect all life at all costs. But laws also historically sentenced people to death and sent soldiers off to war. Another inconsistency. Another theory is that laws give priority to some people above others. Patent law gives priority to patent holders, property law gives priority to property owners, immigration law gives priority to certain immigrants, court systems give priority to whoever it rules in favor of, qualified immunity gives priority to certain government officials. Even self-defense laws give priority to a person who harmed or killed another, if the law deemed it reasonable. From this point of view, you could make an argument that a mother's life should be given priority over her unborn child.
Given how common miscarriages are, we don't know definitively that the fetus will survive all the way to delivery, nor whether other health complications would arise from a pregnancy, nor whether the mother will survive giving birth. With the maternal mortality rate as high as it is in the United States (55th in the world), and the possibility of miscarriages resulting in deadly hemorrhaging, you could make an argument that the mother is reasonably defending her own life and health by terminating the fetus.
As far as your contradiction goes, it’s the statement you’ve made that "all children are of equal worth". You did make the exemption to abortion clear. But as a pure technicality, you can’t make absolute claims like that when there is such a glaring exemption in the law you presented to defend your case. We can both agree that there is a lack of consistency, hence the contradiction. Overturning Roe also showed that there's a lack of consistency in how laws and constitutional rights are interpreted. The lack of consistency is infuriating both ways.
As far as my reasons for being pro-choice, I've cited several and none of them have to do any legal precedence. I did mention that laws were not consistent and change with time and jurisdiction. As far as your claim that women "can and will" travel to seek out legal abortion, it's not a reasonable assumption because it costs money to travel (especially with current gas prices), as well as seeking lodging and accommodations. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of women who do seek abortions are poor, so it's not guaranteed that they can. Texas, the second most-populous state, is also trying to pass a ban on travelling for an abortion, which if successful, also means it's not guaranteed that they will.
But since the topic of regret was brought up, while there are definitely some women that do regret the decision to get an abortion, there are studies that show how the majority of women don't share the same feelings. The largest study on the topic of nearly 700 women asked 5 years after their abortion found that 95% of them felt that it was the right decision. A sample of 500 women in 2009 revealed that 90% believed that having an abortion was also the right decision for them. Another study from 2000 of over 400 women asked 2 years after the fact found that 72% felt the abortion led to more good than harm.
