Doubtless this is a multifarious, polarizing meta-ethical, social issue. In part I seek to dismantle the complex legal regulations surrounding the practice, and in another I wish to touch on the moral nature of the argument. Before utilizing any emotional appeal, or exhortation on the basis of ethics, allow us to divulge the controversies legally.
Unnatural: Advocates of life often argue the process of abortion is unnatural. I do not believe this to be the case. In fact, the Romans abused a plant species to extinction which prevented or terminated the seed of life. A recently acquired hobby, essential oils and aromatherapy, has elucidated to me a good deal of naturally occurring plants are abortive. In fact, miscarriages are naturally occurring; death itself is the antithesis of life, which is the essence of all living things.
Overpopulation: So many educated, or perhaps indoctrinated, individuals have succumbed whole-heartedly to this notion of over-population. While it is true, advancements in technology have allowed this present epoch of history to support more people than ever before, I do not believe we have reached ‘maximum capacity’. The dilemma is mismanagement of resources. In the United States there are three times as many empty homes as homeless people, the federal government owns half of the land mass of the United States, but we have a perceived scarcity. The same if true of society: with the population-density of Beijing, China the entire world population could fit in Texas, and utilize the rest of the continent for resource production, let alone the rest of the world! To those who honestly believe they have the moral high ground instructing others not to proliferate their species, their culture, their legacy and ideologies, on the basis of over-population I have a solution. Kill yourself. Honestly, why foist this dilemma on future people who haven’t the enlightenment, the conviction that you do? In fact, resist the foolish sympathies that lead people to donate their organs, why prolong the earth’s suffering?
Extraneous Issues: Without fail, in every posting I see regarding this issue, someone will quaintly note how pro-lifers don’t support free childcare or some other entitlement. I think this is clearly a hasty generalization, but should it be the case it wouldn’t be relevant. As though they have been programmed, instead of refuting the argument itself many pro-choice people dismiss the argument on separate, disparate grounds. I would not go so far as to say these are not relevant issues, child-rearing is intrinsically related (through the extension of time) to birth and conception, but ultimately this is a separate topic to discuss on the basis of its own merit.
Libertarian ethics: I would describe myself as an original Liberal (Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, and the like) so my conviction regarding individual sovereignty can be summed by Hamlett: “To thine own self be true.” So long as your actions don’t violate the non-aggression principle (infringe on another’s sovereignty) I don’t have any say in your personal choices. How, then, can I reconcile my position on infanticide? Does my political, moral opinion acquiesce with my religious conviction? No, my conviction is grounded on the principles of individual liberty: that each person is endowed by their creator with the inalienable right to life and liberty. Who is to deny a mother the right to abort her child, whether it is on the basis of necessity, convenience, or malice? Modern law is predicated on the basis of helping the helpless, defending the weak and weary, that pedants have as much liberties as the aristocracy. I am of the belief that morality transcends time and space, that wrongly killing someone in one nation is as egregious as killing your neighbor, I give age and ability no preference; to extort life from the able or feeble is equally reprehensible.
Some will argue that on the basis of my gender, my genetic disposition, I am to be excluded from this argument when it comes to voicing my opinion. I maintain that on the basis of being human, I have a vested interest in the future of my species. In this state, men are held fiscally responsible (and by extension morally) through the compulsory force of government taxes, for the wellbeing of their children. I don’t see these feminists vetting their acolytes for barren women. Of course there the elephant in the room of identity, modern leftists don’t believe being born biologically a female excludes men from being female on the basis of perspective, and vice versa.
If a member of an alien species from Kepler were to visit earth, it would still have a valid opinion in this issue. On the basis of thought Cogito ergo sum an individual ought to be heard. Ah, the chink in my armor, can pre-born humans think? Yes, their brains process information: stimulation of various kinds, but is this enough? Do we justify murder on the basis of cognition? If so, there are a great number of purportedly liberal people whom we should have no moral dilemma giving the Pinochet helicopter tour. I do not think most progressives follow this view to its ultimate conclusion, should we kill off the great savants of our time on the basis of ‘inferior’ cerebral processing? The Israeli Defense Forces have an elite unit made predominantly of those with ‘mental disabilities’ renowned for their heightened ability to recognize patterns.
I referenced Descartes’s cogito: thinking is predicated on the basis of existence, perhaps now some will wonder, do the unborn exist? As far as I am concerned, it’s a pretty untenable opinion; if nothing existed you wouldn’t be terminating anything. Still, it’s a good thought experiment to explore.
The most prolific assumption I see from pro-choice adherents is that anything inside, supported by, nurtured by, a woman's body is entirely her body. If that were the case, the millions of bacteria culture in my intestines would merely be a strange aspect of me that lacks human DNA. I understand not all cells have deoxyribonucleic acid, it’s analogous.