It's 2017, and the medical field has developed a method for transplanting an unborn child from one woman's womb into another's. Yet we have a woman who simply wants to abort her child instead of transplanting it. Should she be allowed to do so?
No, because there is no valid argument to be made to do so. She retains a choice that accomplishes what it is she seeks. That being not pregnant.
Today, the case is made that the unborn death is the result of no alternative, therefor it has to be accepted. Like in war, death of civilians has to be accepted as “part of it”. My position suggests removing that argument entirely by keeping a choice, a different one, instead of just removing it entirely.
Let me try it this way:
A sexual predator molests my child. Society has decided that rather than exact my own vengance, retribution and justice, the criminal justice system must do that in my place. My choice, my desire, to see that person punished has not been removed. An alternative, deemed more acceptable by society, was put in it’s place to attain the goal of punishment. I press charges instead of shooting the bastard. Do you see the parallel I am trying to draw there?