Taking away women's right to abortion will do nothing to ensure babies are born in secure and loving homes.
Look, when I argue for women to have access to abortion, it isn't without acknowledgement of the conflict between foetus and mother. In an ideal world there would never be an unwanted pregnancy: no contraceptive failures, no rape, no abusive relationships, no child poverty and financial hardship, affordable high quality childcare, no barrier to mothers working and achieving progress and promotion, no terrible disabilities and conditions incompatible with life, no pregnancy complications that threaten the mother, no hyperemesis, no chronic illness, no antenatal depression, no post-partum depression and psychosis - none of those things would exist and we would have no need of abortion at all.
Well, that isn't the world we live in and so we do have unwanted and unviable pregnancies.
The anti-abortionist solution to this is to force women to bear children they don't want or can't afford or that will ruin their health or disable or even kill them. That's the answer: whatever the cost, whatever the harm, force women to bear these babies.
But there are other solutions. We'll never reach a world where no abortion is ever required, but there is so much we could do - tackle violence against women and girls, treat the existence of child poverty with the moral outrage abortion receives and work to end it, bolster protections for women in the workplace, prioritise women's health in research and treatment to find better help for them in pregnancy and post-partum (rather than just finding more and more restrictions like telling them not to take paracetamol!) - there are just so many ways in which we could make pregnancy and motherhood safer and easier, and that could reduce abortion rates (never down to zero though). I would also argue that we need to make sure women are not tied to bad relationships by having children, but to actually push harder for women to be able to live independently and raise children when they need to. I keep seeing anti-abortion arguments about the need for two parent families and I just don't know how you tackle relationship breakdowns without forcing people to stay in unhappy situations - perhaps better relationship education?
The problem with these solutions? Men would have to change their behaviour. And some people cannot contemplate a change in society that requires some sacrifice or effort from men. It's only supposed to be women who suffer. So they'll scoff at the idea that we could eradicate sexual violence or that we could enable women to work or lift children out of poverty because these things would affect men.
So the misogyny of the anti-abortion stance comes down to this: faced with the problem that sometimes the rights of a foetus and mother are in conflict, their answer is that women need to suffer. There can be no consequence for men, it is women and women alone who must pay the price.
Being pro-choice doesn't mean I relish the thought of abortion. But I accept that in an imperfect world, we need it. And if we want to reduce that need, we need to make positive changes to the way society functions - not punish women.
And by the way, I've been married to a man for twenty years and we've raised sons together so my arguments are not coming from a place of hating men (just the patriarchy!). I get that family stability is a wonderful thing. I have a career I love that wasn't derailed by having children. I had no life-threatening health problems in pregnancy or post-partum, which isn't to say I came through unscathed (I do have a birth injury that in fact I may need surgery for soon). I want all women to have access to the privileges I've enjoyed. I've never had an abortion myself but I am passionately grateful for the fact that if I'd needed one I could have had it. I understand how desperately we need to protect that freedom for all women.