The idea that not killing a baby should be considered "mandatory
childbirth" is crazy to me. How is not being able to murder your child
somehow a violation of freedom?
Full disclosure: I endorse the pro-choice position. So the argument I'm going to submit will reflect said position. Though it is my intention to provide a more consistent argument that's severely lacking from others who share this position--usually the highly emotional "warriors" present and/or endorsed by the mainstream media.
I'm not going to argue that an embryo/zygote/fetus is not a human being given that this is categorically incorrect. Human Development as it is delineated includes for embryo/zygote/fetus, so excluding them is nothing short of arbitrary. Or at the very least, their inclusions would be no less arbitrary than our own--that is, our being "adult" humans. You characterized an abortion as "killing a baby." That would suggest that the mother and/or physician is directly responsible for the termination of the fetus's life, correct? But is this always the case? I'm not oblivious to methods of abortion which destroys and maims the zygote/embryo/fetus before expulsion, and I would perhaps join you in condemning this act. However, as it concerns the methods which expel the zygote/embryo/fetus in tact, can the same characterization be made--i.e. "killing babies"? In the latter's case, does the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's subsequent death result as a consequence of the mother's and physician's direct actions, or is it the zygote's/embryo's/fetus's physiological underdevelopment which renders it incapable of surviving outside of its mother's womb that causes its death?
Typically, I would presume a response in the vein that the mother bears a responsibility to carry the zygote/embryo/fetus to term. We first have to understand the nature of this responsibility and how it's established. And we do this by asking the obvious question: why does a mother bear a responsibility to carry her zygote/embryo/fetus to term? The two most prominent contentions I've had the experience to observe are as follows: (1) sex creates a contract which binds a mother to carry her fetus to term--a prospect she could have avoided had she decided not to risk pregnancy by having sex at all, and (2) the zygote/embryo/fetus needs its mother's womb to develop before being birthed, and as its parent, it's the mother's duty to provide said womb to the best of her capacity to ensure her child's healthy growth. Now the first is absolute nonsense given that the whole notion of a "contract" is just emotional projection given that neither mother nor zygote/embryo/fetus has entered a contract. Even if the contract is said to be between mother and society at large through referendum, the mother has signed nothing--literally and figuratively. The second one is a bit more nuanced. It however has a flaw, i.e. "necessity" being the establishment to a claim. The fetus needs the womb; therefore, it gets the womb, its mother's preferences notwithstanding? How is the zygote/embryo/fetus owed its mother's womb?
Let me ask you directly in order to avoid strawmanning you: what responsibilities do you believe the mother bears as it concerns her pregnancy? Why is refusing her womb to her zygote/embryo/fetus immoral?
