I hate that loophole "well technically it's not alive, so it's ok to abort it, right?" You started that life right away when the embryo as an egg was fertilized.
Now this is where it becomes a matter of opinion. Life begins when the egg is fertilised? Mrs. Nerg doesn't agree, and a fertilised ovum certainly doesn't have any more complexity than your average bacterium. What you believe is the issue here is that an egg has the POTENTIAL for life, and that we should nurse that potential as well as possible, which I'll come back to later.
Here's a question. Your parents could have aborted you if they messed up. Have you ever thought of that? We wouldn't be here today if our parents had decided to abort us. Now do you feel about that? Never even getting the chance to stand up for yourself, no, not even having any say in it.
The truth is, I wouldn't care, and neither would you, and we wouldn't have any thoughts on the matter at all. Foetuses don't have real brains. You cannot really argue whether it is better to live, or to never have existed at all, because not to have existed is not to have hopes, expectations, longing for life, or longing for death. Only the living fear non-existence; the non-existent have no fear. Literally the only thing that matters in the case of something not existing is whether or not someone else wants it to exist, in which case they allow its existence. But should that someone be a random government official, or the parent?
If we extend basic human rights to a few bundles of cells, aren't we also obliged to save every single gamete? Shouldn't women be forced to conceive at every ovulation? Should men be forced to undertake nofaptember-tober-cember-vember-ever?
I've heard lots of stories about "mothers" aborting their babies. They regretted it for the rest of their life..
This isn't an argument, but ok. Anyway, even if we are absolutely fundamentally opposed to abortion, do you not see anything authoritarian and immoral about forcing a woman through such a drastic, life-changing and life-threatening process? What if she's a rape victim, is she just trapped? And surely you have to relent when there's a strong risk the mother might die. How can you say the baby's life is worth more than the mother's if all men are equal? What if there's, say, a 90% chance the baby AND mother will die if she carries it to term? Do we push through with the pregnancy because of that
potential for life? Even if the potential for death is stronger?
You really have to step back and be more libertarian about it. Something with the potential for life does not actually concern barely anybody but the mother. So if the mother wants to abort her child, we kinda have to let her, or else we are exercising absolute control over the body and life of another, and we really only have to support the human rights of the baby when it becomes life. Defining at what stage in the pregnancy it becomes life though is still up for debate.
And then of course, people will get abortions no matter what the government thinks, so you have to make it safely available.