So, if a woman doesn't want to spend eight months serving the needs of what you consider an "unborn child" and that she considers an unwanted pregnancy, you won't seek to force her by making the law force her?

I don't see abortion as the killing of a human being, and neither does most of the world.

Individuals may have different moral positions on many topics, but societies can't force the moral views of a few on the many. I don't think war is moral under any circumstance and I would never kill a human being for any reason.

I suspect that you don't agree and you will argue, based on your prior statement that a woman can kill her rapist, that it is a duty to go to war and kill human beings to defend whatever the government says needs to be defended. That will mean one "innocent human being" killing another "innocent human being." I don't condemn soldiers killing others in war because they are "just doing their duty." And no one can deny that war means killing lots of civilians, women and children, men and boys, and the definition of civilian and soldier are merely legal attempts to paper over the intrinsic immorality of war.

But I see war as merely the symptom of a greater problem. Probably poverty, or a view that "they" are immoral and thus need to be killed or subjugated and the made moral by force.

The reasons for medical science developing ways of preventing pregnancy, terminating pregnancies, preventing the birth of babies who have no chance of living a full and independent life, are to deal with a lot of the same problems that people go to war for.

One thing that underlies war and family planning is a shortage of resources, either locally or increasingly globally.

A woman lacks the resources to be pregnant so she uses all the family planning techniques medical science can offer her to deal with her lack of resources.

A nation lacks resources its leaders believe it needs "to preserve the American way of life" so it goes to war in an attempt to get the resources.

Entire nations have too few resources to support all its people, but instead of going to war, it aggressively promotes family planning to limit population growth.

The question is what are the alternatives? Many people think the US has too many people for the resources. China has far fewer resources and four times the number of people. And China's projected growth would have made things far worse. I am overjoyed that family planning make it possible for the US and China to limit their population and thus reduce the pressure for war to get resources to "protect a way of life" by killing innocent human beings.

It isn't a perfect world. Nature does its thing leading to the deaths of millions. War happens. Children starve. Children die horrible slow deaths with their families watching and waiting for weeks as they slowly die. Children are forced into slavery because their families are poor and starving. Children are forced to become soldiers, forced to kill their parents, brothers, sisters, as part of wars fought over the control of resources which US corporations are all too happy to buy, ignoring the wars and slavery that brought the resources to them.

I suppose everyone has their particular windmill to tilt at, but yours puzzles me more than most. I wonder why you don't focus on getting the US to consume far fewer resources of all sorts, and instead spend the savings fighting the causes of deaths of the walking human beings that are suffering and dying. I don't think the world is going to face a crisis where there are too few people suffering and dying for lack of resources.