Stop me if you've heard this claim before.
It's not enough for pro-lifers to simply be against abortion. If they're REALLY against abortion, they have to provide financial and emotional support for women who may choose abortion.
They need to remove the stigma against out of wedlock pregnancy, because women who are stigmatized will choose abortion to keep their pregnancy a secret.
They need to provide affordable low-income or even free housing to women who have children out of wedlock.
They also need to provide them with free education, financial support as they raise their children, support for funded daycare initiatives so they can work while they have children.
Because if you fail to do any of this, you're making life harder on women who get pregnant, and that just improves the chance that they'll end up choosing abortion - and thus, you're not pro-life if you fail to adhere to this outline.
What's key here is that the above isn't some line taken by pro-abortionists. It's taken by, in my experience, numerous pro-lifers - people who are absolutely adamant that any criticism of women who get pregnant out of wedlock be absolutely verboten among pro-lifers. There's even the attitude that women who have had abortions don't need condemnation - they need love and support and respect, because abortion is a difficult thing, and if they're stigmatized because of having made one mistake they may get pregnant and choose abortion AGAIN, and now we're compounding the error.
I now reject this line of thinking. All of it.
It's not that I'm against providing support to single mothers. It's not that I think people should be hounded lifelong for a sin. But I support those things, insofar as I support them, because I think they are right - and I oppose the ones I oppose because I think they are wrong. I will not be made to support or denounce these things because pregnant women are being treated as terrorists who can, at any moment, acquire a hostage to force others to the negotiating table with.
If a woman freely decides to have an abortion because she worries about her image, if she wants the freedom to have a better job... that blood is on her hands. It's not on the world for failing to put an enticing enough offer on the table for her.
None of this denies that a woman can be in rotten circumstances, that there can be mitigating factors involved with her making the decision to kill her child. I'll accept all of that, I'll extend my sympathies and understanding when I think the case warrants it. But I no longer have an interest in getting caught up in some oversimplified, bizarre consequentialist game where the goal is to look at a balance sheet and determine how to absolutely minimize the number of abortions, such that I'm morally obligated to take every move that arguably will reduce that number.
Women and men who procure or perform abortions, are murderers. Public frowning upon out of wedlock pregnancies is often deserved. If hearing any of those leads a woman to kill her child out of fear of shame, or spite, that's unfortunate - but it's the sin of those procuring and performing the abortion. They cannot make it mine.