If a sovereign democratic country passes a law to murder 5% of its population, don't we have a moral obligation to intervene and prevent them to do so despite them being free, sovereign and democratic.
My point is: Moral obligations can compel you to ignore any other concept you value if you consider the problem serious enough.
There seems to be no recognition by the anti abortion side that even though roughly half or more of the world disagrees with their stance, they’re just going to ignore that, insist that they’re right, and try to impose their view on everyone else anyway.
This kind of sentiment is overly reductive and misses the point. No proponent of small government wants a government so ineffective that it cannot have laws against murder. I personally don't believe abortion is murder, but many people do, and they're not so libertarian as to "live and let live" on such a topic. I wanted to chime in because I really dislike the fallacy of 'you claim to like personal freedom and small government, but you want the government to enforce laws you support? Curious...'
How do you know this? Is this speculation or logical deduction?
>"If they thought abortion were murder, why are they also against contraceptive use?"
This doesn't represent all pro-life people. This mainly represents Catholics. Being anti-contraceptive is, I believe, an effective strategy for the Catholic Church to produce more Catholics.
>"Over a quarter of all pregnancies end in miscarriage - far more than the number of voluntary abortions - why are they doing nothing to reduce that number? "
Miscarriages are often spontaneous and there is little that can actually be done to save the pregnancy. Additionally, there is a categorical difference between a death due to natural causes and a death due to wilful intervention.
>"And if abortion is murder, why make an exception for rape or incest?"
You're on to something. Plenty of pro-life people take the stance that even these exceptions should not be allowed.