Thanks for the reframing of the OP but I don't think it is enough. The choice to abort is ALWAYS available in the entire history of the world. What the question REALLY is, is whether abortions should be made
legally available and if so, under what conditions. This strikes at the heart of RvW and should be the focus of the debate: if abortions were made illegal, they will happen anyway - we'd be back to women harming themselves to avoid an unwanted or forced pregnancy; they'd be going to back alleys and visiting quacks. RvW isn't so much about supporting abortions but making sure that when abortions had to be done that they were done ethically and safely.
To literally, per the reworking of the OP, how could the "choice to have an abortion" be forbidden?
In many cases, Plan B seems to be a reasonable choice but opponents of abortions don't like that either, so the line seems to be unreasonable drawn by the PL side of things.
Personally, I think the PL side of the arguments fail to address why RvW is so important in the first place, and some PL supporters also promote terrible sex education; usually abstinence and sometimes even not teaching safe and responsible sex. Those people's arguments should be wholly rejected and they should not be allowed to affect the debate: since they're usually driven by their religious views their real end goal is to force their religion upon others.
On the flip side of things, some PL supporters have a point. Some abortions happen immediately on a Downs Syndrome diagnosis to the point that in Iceland 100% pregnancies are aborted. And just today Sweden is headed in that same direction (
source). So it's not always a clear cut choice given that some Downs kids can function independently as adults. And is it really moral to destroy a potential life just because they would cause hardship for their parents as well as not necessarily have a great quality of life.
Bookmarks