51.1% of the United States (women) have a direct and personal stake in this issue. They care, although many don't think about it until it's actually their immediate problem, and then it might be too late.

As a male, I also care because the issue directly impacts people in my life that I care about. The pro-life side of the aisle is directly and viciously assaulting their bodily sovereignty and potentially their health and life.

The pro-lifers might be fighting for some nebulous "unborn" who they will likely never know and never have any real obligation to, but I'm fighting for my partner, my daughters, my sisters, my friends. And I'll be damned before I let some disgusting religious extremists create a system that enslaves them.

The “this is a womens issue” argument is invalid on its face.

Everyone is born, and this everyone is impacted by the right to kill the unborn. Every human being has a stake in this.

No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent. You and I only get to be here debating because our mothers chose to give that gift to us. It is not within our rights to force others to do the same for their own fetuses.

>No one has the right to continue living by parasitically sucking off another person without their consent.

This clearly does not hold up for children after birth. I can't deposit my infant in the desert and withdraw my consent to provide for it. This would be murder.

Infanticide has been and still is an incredibly common and accepted practice in human society, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide.

It is only in the privilege of modern society where we have such an abundance of resources that we have collectively consented to allocate a percentage of our commonwealth to the care of unwanted infants and children through orphanages and foster care, that we can treat infanticide as barbaric murder. You can sever your responsibility to you child by surrendering them to the state, so severing your responsibility by leaving them to die of exposure is indeed unnecessary and barbaric.

I personally believe that in the future, when we develop artificial wombs, we may revisit the question of abortion and require that women "abort" by having the fetus extracted alive and transplanted into an artificial womb. Preemie care is effectively the state of the art for "artificial wombs" and the current record survival is 21 weeks of age, which is just shy of the third trimester. This would also then require us to collectively allocate money and resources to caring for and raising these unwanted infants in an expensive medical setting.

However, I suspect we'll develop near perfect, side effect free, and reversible birth control before this happens, so the issue of abortion may mostly resolve itself on its own. That is, unless the religious extremists get their way and ban birth control too, which the current leaked court decision seems like it's paving the way for.

This is an extremely good point, if you care a lot about no more abortions then start working and investing in the ability to create children without depending on a person with a uterus.

Until then, keep your moral outrage out of people's bodies.

The equivalent argument is forcing everyone to become a living organ donor. It would unquestionably save lives, so from a pro-life perspective, it’s a no brainer.