The critical value for a woman’s legal right (I do not say moral) to an abortion is the right to be left alone. She demands privacy about who she attaches herself to and the right to relinquish relations when she wants.
The argument that she is merely messing with her own body is nonsense and has been for some time. The genetics are different. The combination of sperm and egg forms, uncontroversially, a new human being.
That anyone would fight for the right to abortion (as the right to cease care where no enforceable voluntary contract has promised care) and NOT for the right to abolish the parasitical state and its demands that the individual care even where he has not voluntarily consented to care is preposterous.
You may not have your cake and eat it too. The choice is not hard once the option is seen. Either, it is right to enslave some for the care of others, in the form of mother to child or individual to corporate or individually impoverished welfare recipient, or it is not.
If you think individuals ought to have the right to be left alone, then be consistent. Don’t attempt some fancy complexity dance in order to justify forced care in your favored cases and right to be left alone in others. What you are doing if you go that route is tying enslavement to your own emotional attitudes toward this or that dependent.
Scale back. Get perspective. What is your position on dependents and the responsibilities of those who could help? Ought some be in the position of demanding that others help or else? Add thinking to your feeling and you will see the stark reality: what needs deciding is what some have a right to do to others to force their care of still others where there is no enforceable voluntary contract.
“But it’s complicated”. No it’s not. It is simply uncomfortable.