By your reasoning then maybe we should let the woman choose to retroactively kill her 12 year old or her 10 kids by 8 baby daddies... Since "there are a host of other arguments in support of the right to choose, such as the reduction of poverty and crime."<quoted text>
I replied to Q on this but basically it's the woman's choice. Ultimately it has to be the woman's choice since she is the only person who necessarily has to endure the rigors of pregnancy and have her life permanently altered as a result.
The man can walk away, as many do. Laws requiring him to do anything at all cannot match what the woman is required to do.
And there are a host of other arguments in support of the right to choose, such as the reduction of poverty and crime.
The main thing is to be sensitive of suffering, both of the woman and potential child. And that's the really hard part.
And heck that woman didn't really understand the suffering she and her kids would be going through 12 years down the line when the father up and splits and leaves them on the street...