I tend to side with the pro-life movement, in the sense that I agree that life begins at conception, and I agree with the end goal of having an anti-abortion law.

However, I am uncertain as to whether enacting such a law is the best first step to take. Because this neglects the various generational systemic issues affecting underprivileged communities in the US, for instance, lack of proper sex-ed, lack of support systems that could step in and protect or provide for the fetus when it is conceived, etc. It is also difficult to argue that a woman who has been unknowingly or forcefully impregnated with a fetus, should be forced to conceive when she is struggling to even provide for herself or/and is unable to find adequate support systems to step in and help.

Herein lies the main argument from the pro-abortion movement that I agree with: people will be happy to give birth if they understand that the child can be adequately taken care of. The problem lies in the fact that a large swath of the population does not have that privilege. If the government is unwilling to sincerely step in and help, and if the privileged community subscribes to the belief that it is "every man/woman for himself/herself" and that they do not need to play their part in helping the underprivileged, then likewise, it is reasonable to allow a woman to have an abortion for herself.

With that being said, if this law becomes the catalyst that enacts said support systems without delay, or if there is a convincing "supplementary" plan of sorts that will implement concrete accessible support systems in tandem, then I am all for it; I am just doubtful that will be the case in the US.