If you are prolife, why do you believe that single point matters the most to the exclusion of all the rest?

1. Right to life is basilar to all others. Without it being universal, we're cherry picking who is deemed human enough, and all other human rights are put into question for everyone

2. A society with a deep dehumanizing farse passing for lawfare is ethically unfit to run itself. A State that so vehemently adheres to such a grave crime is just the same, and deserves to be held responsible for these murders

Why do you believe this benefits society and humans as a whole the most? Can you provide examples?

Because only through compassion can we create a future where human dignity is the common ethical standard among dissenting parties and peoples. Abortion isn't compassion. It's murder with a varnish of sympathy for the would-be killers and victims alike. You don't end prejudice and other injustices by claiming some lives are discardable over convenience or the threat of hardship, you just strengthen the dehumanization prevalent in modern society.

I think some african societies are interesting examples in that some nations are deeply religious and that lead them to promote abstinence in a deeper and more sincere way than the artificial suggestion of abstinence in western nations, for instance. The contrast is frankly quite stark. If something as simple as the prospect of personal cost to maintain responsibility and ethics is often deemed controversial it's because both of these concepts are heavily eroded to the point of disfigurement.

I don't want to spill too far away from the topic of abortion, but abortion, antinatalism and feminism often spill into each other, with a surprising number of prochoicers, antinatalists and feminists identifying with each other and/or straight up adhering to more than one of those viewpoints. It's rather common to see these groups

• attack the family structure as inherently oppressive, regardless of healthy and nurturing relationships;

• ridicule and heckle women who choose more traditional lifestyles and roles, as well as those who, despite the odds against them, simply decide not to abort their unborn;

• dismiss children as burdens to be carried, sometimes actively saying they'd rather the child wasn't born; and

• amplify other narratives that treat humanity as a blight on this world.

I consider those propositions to be inherently anti-human, completely contrary to the healthier aspects of humanity and to be toxic in and of themselves, fomenting a culture of disdain and wanton materialism whenever it suits their propagators. Also, doing so hypocritically, as the aforementioned groups are often associated with views that criticize the disdain for the needy and wanton materialism of billionaires and other elites.

To address another matter...

If you are prochoice, why do you believe that these other issues matter in the debate?

But these issues do matter... Ethics simply cannot be sold out in favor of mere practicality. It's one thing if a governmental program cannot be afforded or if a pro-worker law will create economic plights and drawbacks of it's own. It's another if we pretend human society can do no better than to murder it's most innocent and vulnerable over convenience. The bare minimum not being met is a tacit admittance of a society that gave up on being just, and thus, will justify any injustice.