The Great Abortion Debate
Abortion has been a polarizing topic in this country for at least 50 years, and the recent leak of a draft opinion from the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade hasn't changed that, nor can it. And while abortion is murder and morally abhorrent, banning it is the wrong move.
From the moment of conception, a biological process has been put into motion that will, in the normal course, result in the birth of another human in 9 months. Permitting abortion at any point after this is creating an arbitrary line (what's the difference between a 90-day old fetus and the same fetus at 89 days?), and to terminate that pregnancy is to terminate a human life. Everywhere else we would call that murder, and in some circumstances a more grotesque and horrifying murder that if committed by one adult to another would have them labeled a monster. Deep down everyone in this debate knows this to be true despite abortion advocates attempts to dismiss it.
That doesn't necessarily mean it should be made illegal.
Because if you're going to call abortion murder and advocate the State make it illegal, then in order to remain consistent there are a number of other things that must also happen. You would need to scrutinize or restrict the purchase of certain medications, like misoprostol, or even pennyroyal tea that can be used to induce an abortion. The police would need to investigate deaths of the unborn to determine if a crime was committed. Every miscarriage or stillbirth would need to be investigated, and if it were to be determined that the cause of death was intentional, then everyone involved, from the (previously) pregnant woman to any doctors, nurses and their employers, would need to be charged with a crime. Abortions stemming from rape or incest would no longer be allowed. The only permissible exception would be in defense of the mother's life, and those instances are incredibly rare.
Are those anti-abortionists ready to take their position all the way to its logical conclusion? Not that I've seen to this point. So that means it's only murder sometimes... which is exactly what many abortion advocates argue.
Abortion advocates make silly arguments like "a fetus isn't human" (sounding eerily similar to advocates for human slavery) or "the fetus is a leech" (completely ignoring the in most cases it was the woman's previous choices that put the fetus there), and claim "my body, my choice" while also being the same people wailing for things like COVID vaccine mandates.
Meanwhile, those who advocate for State involvement in preventing abortion will be the first in line of teeth gnashers screaming "my body, my choice" when it comes to COVID mandates yet see no qualms with the State forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child.
Neither side has principles, they just want the gun of government to be pointed at people they disagree with.
No Hope for Success
There is no question that there is an overwhelming moral basis for restricting abortion; clearly the unborn are the most innocent among us, and killing the innocent is about as wrong as it gets. That said, there has to be a practical way to enforce a ban, and as far as I can tell the level of government intervention needed to enforce an abortion ban is antithetical to a free society. It is unfortunately a murder the government simply can't get involved in without almost invariably making things worse than they already are.
Reality sucks sometimes, and that's as close to a resolution as there can realistically be on this topic.