Are you claiming that women are stupid, child-like, and dont know what is occuring in their bodies?
A woman doesn't have to be stupid, childlike, or ignorant of what's occurring in her body to become panicked or desperate, or to lose perspective.
That we cant make good decisions despite stress or tough circumstances (but strangers know their lives better?)
"Good decisions" is subjective and dependent on one's priorities.
Moral decisions are not subjective. As abortion is inherently an immoral act, I'm claiming that many women
do not make moral decisions in "stress[ful] or tough circumstances".
Moral culpability isn't limited to the mother only. If the father of the child impregnates a woman without knowing and/or caring about her willingness to bear and raise a child, or if he refuses to support and parent his child, or if he otherwise puts the mother into a position where she's more likely to abort the child, he's equally morally culpable for the death of the child.
That we all missed health ed and sex ed and biology in several years of our education?
Regrettably, education is by no means a flawless bulwark against reckless, foolish, dangerous, or gravely harmful/immoral behaviour.
Women dont need BS rainbows blown up their skirts about how they will get so much support from the community and welfare and food stamps and that they wont lose their jobs and end up in a dangerous neighborhood...with their other kids or dependents as well.
Evidently many do.
Yes, most women that have abortions already have at least one kid. THen they might be responsible for elderly parents, disabled siblings, etc. The point is...strangers dont know what their circumstances are and dont care...all they care about is another birth.
Pro-life advocates assert different moral priorities than pro-choice advocates. The former regard every unborn child as a fellow human being and future citizen, regardless of development or parentage. Preserving the life of the child supersedes every other moral imperative, including all those that would contraindicate carrying the child to term (with the possible exception of the death of the mother).
This set of moral priorities doesn't mean that pro-life advocates "dont [sic] know what [expectant mothers'] circumstances are and dont [sic] care", just as most pro-choice advocates (I should hope) do give some regard to the life of the child.
OTOH, there are those of that believe more in quality of life...for women, for society, for all babies once born....that quantity.
If a higher mean quality of life superseded the moral imperative to preserve life itself, policies ranging from eugenics to class genocide to extirpation of the infirm and elderly would make perfect sense.
Instead, I stress the importance of maximizing the quality of life for our fellow man
while unconditionally respecting this moral imperative.
A significant part of this is "support from the community", "welfare and food stamps", helping mothers to not "lose their jobs and end up in a dangerous neighborhood", etc. All the things you deride as 'blowing BS rainbows up their skirts'.
It's a fine line to walk because many pro-lifers, myself included, want to make it easier for reluctant mothers to respect their moral obligations while at the same time maintaining strong and unequivocal opposition to the behaviours that lead to unwanted pregnancies. It's hard to shield others from the consequences of their irresponsible and/or immoral behaviours without inadvertently facilitating the proliferation of those behaviours. If you see a pro-lifer adopting an intractable "life is tough; deal with it" stance, it's most likely for this reason, not because they heartlessly seek misery
qua misery, as was Ayn Rand's contention.
