There are two hypothetical societies:
1 - protects against abortion.
a) has more single mothers (linked to negative outcomes)
b) has more overpopulation (linked to negative outcomes)
c) in fact likely has higher rates of poverty/crime, from combined multiple factors related to the likely increase in unplanned families
2 - does not restrict abortion and views it as a free choice, and thus avoids these negative side social effects
Here are two others which are more extreme versions of this hypothetical contrast:
1 - punishes all crimes with death, life sentences and/or banishment, euthanize the handicap/low IQ, regulate birthing to optimize health, intelligence, prosocial behaviours (perhaps to the point of forbid 'poor' or 'ilequipt parents' from breeding)
a) likely has far greater wealth and prosperity over the control
b) likely has extremely high prosocial measures
c) is likely very logical, happy and scientific society with low crime/poverty rates
2 - does not like socially approve of these outcomes, but forbids as a society taking any extreme & unjust measures to justify achieving them as an outcome
No, these are not equivalent. Merely hypothetical examples of a principle.
————————————————————————————————————————————————————
It is a fact: black fetuses are 4x more like to get aborted than average, girls in china more likely to be aborted than males, so we also much acknowledge these realities of choice means two hypothetical society, do not only differ in universal metrics(e.g. crime/poverty) but also fundamentally cultural demographics. So: IQ, race, religious, family structure, political preclivity, gender-age composition all change with these actions. This is because, when State policy decide who lives and who dies, it is always a form of social engineering, either way in fact. Prohibition on abortion, socially engineers against based on 'moral considerations', where as limited-restrictions don't centrally control, do de facto implore social engineering by the masses in contrast. In the second, case where I doubt you are as supportive, we see the government infringes "free choice" but this time toward the 'collective' ideal rather than simply allowing for ideal outcomes from the impacts of free choice.
My point, is to highlight for all your talk your simply arguing parental rights. Does a parent have the right to end their condition as a parent before such has the implication of becoming a potential burden on others?
And, I am sympathetic not simply against as I would be if we were talking the later example, which circumvents even "free choice".
The problem remains. If we do not stand for those unideal unwanted children. No one will. And, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't have a line. I for example for fully admit, I'd be for aborting a knowingly low IQ or handicap child. But for some, it might be a gay child. For other a girl. For others, yes it may simply be any non-planned child. The point is you can't make it so simple, because it's social engineering, which impact everyone. So, I am glad you found your position, and support and defend the freedom to make their choice. But, stop pretending your side is obvious or the only moral choice.
Standing for the unideals right to live is not a moral defect. Moderate yourself
eace