Despite having been quite vocal on the subject for years and across numerous platforms, I still feel like a fish remarking on wings on the subject of abortion, and I will probably never feel like my perspective could possibly be as relevant as a woman's upon the matter when it comes right down to the nitty-gritty of it where factors such as demonstrated thought and education upon the topic are elsewise equal. And even where they're not equal, I'm still violently opposed to it being men deciding what shall and shall not pass across this sociopolitical bridge of Kazad-Dum.
That said as a form of apologetic disclaimer, I agree with jaimehlers' position aforstated and quoted here for clarity's sake --
I believe there are other alternatives to "let her have the abortion" and "imprison her". The only one I can think of offhand is inducing birth and then keeping the infant on life support, but I imagine there would be other possibilities as well.
The thing is, we wouldn't countenance killing an infant, even if it was only one day old, for any of those reasons. And while a fetus is not an infant, it is developed enough to be recognizable as human and to be able to survive outside the womb. That fact has to be taken into account for a reasonable decision to be made. We have to draw the line for when a fetus should have legal protections somewhere, and I would rather draw it somewhere that makes sense (like at 21-24 weeks, for the reasons I mentioned), than let the "personhood" fanatics try to draw it at conception, or even before.
-- wherein which I have bolded the specific portion I concur absolutely with.
From a rational standpoint, I agree with him on this because if it is regulated in a manner conducive to the interests of women, it will benefit not only women; it will benefit everybody in addition to, particularly, allowing for equally regulated and quality-assured practices to be normalized in address of the abortion process as well as the psychological and emotional well-being of those affected.
Beyond the strictly rational, I believe that it would very well best be brought to a woman's concensus on the matter to be determined. I very well do believe that upon this particular subject, the male gender does not and ultimately cannot make a fully informed decision upon what laws and regulations should and should not be put in action upon it.
I do not think our thoughts or our expressed feelings should be discounted entirely, but we really are the peanut gallery on this one at the end of the matter; we will never be pregnant. We will never, no matter how compelling our imaginations might be in trying to put ourselves in a pregnant woman's position, have that perspective, and it will not be we men that have to live firsthand with the shapes and natures of the regulations because it will not be our bodies being regulated upon.
No amount of being a husband, a father or a son changes this; we are not qualified, and cannot become qualified, to arbitrate upon this in one absolutely critical aspect.
We can learn everything there is to know about it as that can be read about or observed. We can study it from every angle and by every discipline of science right on over to outright fabrication, but we will never BE a pregnant woman.
We will never BE a pregnant woman facing these decisions and whatever limitations of options regulations apply to them. Not today, not tomorrow and not on this side of fantastical realizations of science-fiction biomedical practices will we EVER be a pregnant woman.
It flies in the face of how governance tends to go most anywhere in the world to actually call for a certain degree of segregation based on gender. I've argued my position and attending beliefs with a whole lot of people, and not always in a conversational dinner-table fashion with pedestrian speculators. There are a lot of good points that can and have elsewhere, to me, been made about how doing something like excluding men based on being of the male gender from the process of codifying such regulations would, even if it went well in its own consideration, set a terrible precedent for future and reciprocative segregations by gender in the process and codification of law making.
Those points are absolutely valid, and so I wish to make it very plain that that would not be what I would call for on a topic like this.
Rather, I would ask men to temper their own opinions, beliefs and perspectives with this information, and yes, to accept on a personal level that we are not women; we will never be women, pregnant or otherwise, and no matter how strongly we feel, or how educated we are upon all relevant topics, we lack a vital point of capability to be informed upon a critical aspect of the matter in absolute terms.
We are not women. So, for those that find this position compelling that are also of the male gender, please, support the women in your life with your input and feedback; share your thoughts and express your feelings, but don't try to take an authoritative position beyond the terms of your relevant input. And realize that there is one very important aspect of the matter on which you will never this side of dreamland have relevant input to give.