The argument presented in this article is, unfortunately, incoherent. The mistake always made by right-to-lifers (perhaps intentionally?) is to put on opposing sides only two of the issues in play. By presenting abortion/no abortion as the only options, and by ignoring all real-world complexities, they can then frame the argument as a clear moral choice. This is either disingenuous.

First we note that so-called "pro-life" agitators seem to stop caring about life the moment it's born. They strikingly reject policies that would help single parents cope with newborns, help single parents by providing child care, and help single parents by providing after-school care. Nope, it's all about abortion, and screw the kid once it's out of the womb.

Secondly, the major reason abortion is still sought is because pro-lifers invariably oppose making contraception freely available to everyone who wants it. This is why the USA has the OECD's highest rate of unwanted pregnancy. Logically, so-called "pro-lifers" should support the provision of contraception, but once again we see that in nearly every case they're adamantly opposed.

In short, the vast majority of so-called "pro-life" pseudo-moralizing is really just a group of people looking to impose their narrow notions on others who will suffer the consequences. And that is a morally repellent position to adopt.