The hypocrisy of the 'pro life' position is the exceptions that are already made - killing another person is allowed in self defense, war, and capital punishment. So it becomes a question of which circumstances are acceptable. The arguments against abortion boil down to morality, and IMO, forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy and bear an unwanted child is immoral. It's also against the best interests of her, the child, and society as a whole.
It's all well and good to insist we hold people responsible for their behavior, but responsible women have discovered that neither they, nor any birth control in existence is infallible - pregnancy happens despite the efforts to prevent it. Don't even try the "just say no to sex" argument, because that's not even remotely reasonable, for consenting adults. And the fly in the ointment is that it's the "innocent babies" [funny how the emotional imagery is so important] who will suffer the consequences of being born to parent who didn't want, or couldn't afford them.
Adoption is a lovely thought, but it's as unrealistic as 'just say no'. Once a woman carries a pregnancy to term and gives birth, it really is a baby, and guilt, hormones, and various other pressures combine to persuade her that she wants to keep her child. She has no money, spouse, or family support, but reason doesn't enter into it at that point - it's an adorable baby, and it's hers, and she's going to keep it. [Have a nice life, kid!]
Nobody likes abortion, or thinks it an acceptable method of birth control, but banning it didn't work out too well, either, if you recall. There's no reason to believe that banning it again will result in any different outcomes, is there?
The only sane approach is to minimize the need for it, with comprehensive education and accessible birth control options.
Which many abortion opponents are doing their very best to eliminate, BTW.
