It's the woman's body. Until that baby is no longer attached and no longer consuming resources directly from the woman, or the woman is able to separate the child from her and another life is able to care for the child, then the woman can choose what to do with the life that is totally dependent on her. Otherwise, the woman is always going to be in the way of protecting or hurting the child.
I don't agree that abortion is beneficial to the species as just an option to relieve discomfort. So what I understand is that in order to protect the life of the unborn child one must violate the woman's bodily property first. Therefore, based on the work I've done in my books, Liberty Defined and Morality Defined, the right to do as the woman pleases with her body as long as the child is directly connected to her and under her care is her business. Many, probably even most, will not agree with this assessment. That’s fine.
I will also argue that it is not beneficial in the long run concerning Humanity's future to kill the child after the child is born. It is far more beneficial in my opinion to give up the child for adoption. However, unlike most people who will inevitably disagree with me, condemning me to be a monster and a horrid individual, I have clearly defined a set of parameters from which to act accordingly with others without having to go through hundreds of hours of rigorous philosophical study.
Having done this, I have created a set of simple and universally applicable parameters to be employed which explain liberty and morality. How many people can say they have done this, let alone attempted it beyond a few scattered thoughts? Not many, I am certain of that!
But just to summarize the foundation from which I address the issue of abortion, liberty is the refinement of one’s three natural resources to maintain and improve the quality of their life. These three natural resources are time, intellect, and labor in that order. The refinement of these three resources is always something capable of satisfying one or more of the four basics of life, otherwise we would not be refining them. This even includes their refinement to do things that do not maintain or improve life.
This latter statement is true because we do not call a dog with two heads instead of one, or three legs instead of four, something other than a dog because of a singular abnormality. So why would we say that someone attempting to commit suicide to end their despair or pain works against the idea to maintain or improving the quality of their life when they clearly are not in control of their cognitive abilities to the same extent someone feeling happy and content with their life is? Such thinking is an abnormality in the same regards as someone trying to hurt others for glee. These acts are not the norm for perpetuating the species; and that is the goal of Humanity’s consistent reproduction.
Of course there are added bonuses to reproducing as we are an intellectual species more so than many. There is joy in creating children for many us and raising them. There is comfort in having our achievements amongst Humanity live on in our children and so on. And this is why the issue of abortion is so hotly contested.
As we refine our time, intellect, and labor we create what is called wealth. This wealth has value because it satisfies what is necessary to maintain and improve human life. The value is two parts in foundation, first the desire for it and then the supply and demand aspect. And by engaging in sexual intercourse to pleasure ourselves and or conceive a child, we are refining our time, intellect, and labor to produce offspring which may carrying on our intellectual legacy, if not simply open up the possibility of a new mind to problem solve and enjoy life. Having understood this, it becomes necessary to fathom how to interact to create such wealth and not be at constant odds with one another. Thus the idea of morality is born.
Morality is a complex concept today, yet it is such a simple concept at its core. The preservation and respect of human life to perpetuate more minds to potentially problem solve the issues of different minds capable of reasoning, sentience, and communication relatively similar or as complex as our own is the goal. This rules out elephants, primates, and mostly every other kind of life on our planet but leaves open the possibility to interact and find equality in alien life or the evolution or discovery of such on our own planet one day.
Unfortunately the issues with morality are founded in the exceptions to such an idea. Differences in appearance, language, and cultural values have led to morality being redefined time and time again. Cultish ideas have formed around the idea of preservation of specific kinds of life with greater specificity than the three already unique concepts I’ve shared; reasoning, sentience, and similar complexity in communication.
Because of this, morality is so often seen as subjective in nature, that it is open for interpretation. The problem lay in the failure, by either direct refusal or honestly not realizing the need, to gain clarity in what the fundamental foundation of morality is all about! And it’s all about the preservation of human life, currently. (Although, I can make an argument about other non-human life with the three aforementioned qualities.)
So in a nutshell, morality works like this at its base: We find value in the preservation of our individual lives. We want that respected. We find that others hold similar, if not the same, concepts. We show them through communication that we understand this idea, even if we do not know how to express such with absolute clarity. Of course this inability is what leads to exceptions to universally applicable moral parameters. This is what leads to religion and spiritual ideas that put faith in something that cannot be explain beyond sentiment.
After recognizing this in others we understand that we must respect one another at a default of 100% regardless of how much we value ourselves over others. This default must hold until another has acted with intent or otherwise. If intentional then pending the circumstances the violated may disregard as much as 100% respect leading to the consideration of the violator’s life being forfeit. If unintentional then making time to communicate to avoid further accidents and destruction is necessary to avoid just acts of retaliation regardless of the innocently acting violator.
Essentially this is what forms the idea of the Nonaggression Principle. This also is where conventional morality, in terms of religion, begins to greatly differ. The Nonaggression Principle is the neutral foundation of all morality. Without it there are no positive actions to encourage and aid others just as there are no vile acts to intentionally gain at the expense of others. Yet common religions and understandings leading to subjective labels of morality typically make no mention of this.
Taking into consideration these two concepts, liberty and morality, the woman must be respected as the child cannot fully communicate, reason, or even be recognized as sentient until well after being out of the womb! And then it is often years before the child can communicate on a functioning level to understand basic philosophy. Of course this is far after the expenditure of a vast amount of resources to maintain and improve the child’s life.
It is easy to say that abortions are wrong! It is difficult to understand the amount of work required to provide for one’s own self, let alone one’s self and another completely dependent upon the care giver for years! So when people are saying that abortion is morally wrong they are advocating for the parent to become enslaved to a child potentially. This is a difficult concept to understand. And it will inevitably earn me a fair deal of backlash. That’s fine.
I also want to make sure the reader understands that I do not advocate for abortions. I think they potentially hinder the positive development of greater pinnacles of success for Humanity by destroying another mind. However, to make an exception to the respect all people are entitled to as the only right, that to life, when fitting all the criteria, we would be creating more problems than not.
That stated, there must be a line drawn at some point where life is to be considered sacred or not. The issue is not with the proclaimed defenseless unborn. The issue is with understanding how the unborn must be interacted with. If another body must be violated and justifications can be made to violate that life, then the moral philosophy employed is inconsistent.
The truth is that morality applies to those whom can understand it, even if it is limited. Therefore, the woman should have the right to choose and the only other consideration in such a matter is the father, if there is one. In that situation, they both need to come to some kind of an agreement because both of their time, intellect, and labor are refined to create and provide for their child.
Otherwise, it is the woman’s choice for good or ill for no other reason than to ensure her right to life is maintained.