Glad to see so many pro-choicers here!
Personally, with the laws of abortion as they are, there should always be the choice for abortion, and if it is taken away, it will only lead to conflict.
Personally I'm against the concept of abortion. I believe life begins with the fetus and that abortion is murder, and should be counted as a crime of murder like any other under the law. I believe when people undertake unprotected intercourse, they should be prepared to face the consequences. However, if they do not necessarily feel they are up for the task of parenthood, or just don't want the child at all for whatever reason, they should still have the baby but allow others to adopt them as there are tens of thousands of people who cannot be parents but would make fantastic parents.
Just my own thoughts though, I know not everyone would agree with me and that my perspective is one-sided. But changing them now after just introducing them in the post-modernist era will only cause trouble. The choice should be kept available, but people should be encouraged to take more protection during intercourse and to plan ahead if they want a child.
I'm glad to see that you acknowledge the need for abortion to be legal and accessible! That said, I do want to respond to your middle paragraph.
Firstly, I think the idea that people should only have sex if they can "face the consequences" (ie raise a child together) to be abhorrent. Having a baby is not a punishment for having sex, and it should never be viewed that way. If you value life and consider it to be sacred, then you shouldn't view child-rearing as a way to get back at people for having sex. Just because you're ready to have sex does not mean you're ready to be a parent, whether from a maturity, psychological, emotional, biological or economic standpoint. Additionally, by this logic, a couple who accidentally gets pregnant is "irresponsible" and should have to pay for their failure...except that, again by this logic, these are precisely the kinds of people who are
unfit to be parents. Forcing them to raise a child is in itself responsible, and not only does it impact them for the rest of their lives, but it impacts the life of the baby as well.
Secondly, it's very easy to tell someone to "just put the baby up for adoption," but that's not a real solution. First of all, it takes 9 months to carry a baby to term, meaning that the mother will have to drop out of school or work, which can have long-term consequences. If she already has a family (and many people who seek abortions already have one or more children), then it can impact the family as well. Second, the adoption and foster care system is
already overwhelmed - there are currently too many children without permanent, healthy homes. Having women carry unwanted pregnancies just to put the baby up for adoption is, again, cruel to both the parent and to the child, and to the system as a whole.
Lastly, the discussion of when personhood begins is a complicated one, and is something I think needs to be addressed separately. Currently, there is no real, scientific answer as to when a fertalized egg becomes a person. I personally can't get behind the idea that a zygote should have the same rights as or should be treated equally to a person. That said, as shown in Mordent99's link, even if a fetus
was a person it wouldn't really change the fact that you can't force a person to sacrifice any part of themselves (be it an organ or their entire body) for another.
~Psychic