It would drastically reduce the number of abortions...
You can assert that all you like, but you'll need evidence. Please provide some.
But your logic fails afters this because in this legal system the unborn human is of the same value as a person... In this legal system, women who die from botched abortions would be equivalent to someone attempting murder and die in the process.
No, it would be someone succeeding at murder and dying in the process. The fetus wouldn't be saved either way. The only change is a dead woman. The only result from your way of doing things is dead women.
You are not allowed to murder anyone, so you attempting to murder something and hurting yourself in the process gives you no excuse.
A rather easy argument can be made for self defense against a fetus by a woman obtaining an abortion. The fetus (a whole separate human being by your standards) is forcibly inside her body, siphoning her blood and other fluids, physically draining energy and nutrition out of her body, and making her sick, all without her consent. The counter argument is that she gives consent by having sex. Oh look, you did!
They had the choice to have sex or not have sex.
But this is nonsense, both because it doesn't account for women who get pregnant while using birth control, manifesting a clear intent NOT to be pregnant, thus negating any consent, and the fact that consent can always be revoked. That's why someone can trespass on your property if they stay after you ask them to leave, and why continuing to have sex with someone after they tell you to stop is rape.
It is their choice to harm themselves in such a way, but they have to deal with the consequences... just like any crime. EVERYONE who has sex must accept the responsibility that there is a chance that there could be a baby.
And then it comes to this notion of consequences and responsibility. Why should sex come with consequences? Why should anyone ever become a parent without wanting to? Why should the mere fact that sex has historically been the means of procreation (due to biology) mean that it must continue to be so? You conflate "is" and "should". Just because something is (sex leading to parenthood when a person doesn't want to) doesn't mean it should be. It's a strange mentality that really sounds like a desire to punish people (almost exclusively punish women) for having sex.
You act like this is such a foreign proposition, abortions were illegal for a very long time before Rode vrs. Wade
No, I act like it is a WRONG proposition. Because it is. And grossly unconstitutional. And I wish we had a Supreme Court with the courage to actually enforce that and strike down several state's onerous laws to inhibit personal liberty.
and couldn't be performed safely for the tens of thousands of years humans have been in existence... it is in fact something really new to be able to have an abortion.
That's a limitation in technology, not in morality or law. Abortions have been a part of every human culture for as long as there have been humans and culture. Forcing a woman to breed against her will is wrong. That's really all there is to it.
Regardless of the convenience of abortions, it doesn't really matter. Killing "worthless"/inferior people in our society would be convenient, but we don't do it because they are human.
Actually, we do kill people. We do it all the time. Often by letting them starve or die of preventable medical conditions. A lot of the anti-abortion crowd likes to wail that the right to life trumps all other rights, but this seldom applies outside of the argument about abortion. Demand a program from the government to feed every single child in the country, without exception, so that literally not a single one starves or suffers from malnutrition, and then FUND that program, and then you can trumpet life being a more fundamental right than others (specifically property, in this case). No? You won't pay for it? Congratulations. You value the right to property more than the right to life.
The reality, in cold hard numbers, is that a woman who is forced to have a child before she is ready is vastly more likely to slip into poverty, and that child plus any subsequent children she has will also be trapped there. Meanwhile, allowing her time to build a stable economic base before children will keep her and her later children out of poverty. The difference between two children living a good life with stability and promising futures, both for themselves and their eventual families, and three children living in poverty, and their children most likely living in poverty as well, is vast. The former is many many times greater than the latter. Especially in terms of the right to property, since her right to economic stability and mobility is compromised by the fetus' right to life, which we established above is inferior to her right to property.
The arguments against abortion are inconsistent and without legal merit. They only ever amount to placing a discriminatory and onerous burden on women, and only women, for how they conduct their personal lives. And that is something that neither you, nor I, nor the government, have a right to do.
