In real countries that have standards and dignity and integrity, the abortion debate is between these two options:
1 - Ban abortions after medically-determined point X, but provide a social safety net for young parents that are financially struggling. If you’re going to mandate full-term pregnancies because you value the life of the unborn child, then your social and domestic policies have to reflect that too. Kids who might not otherwise have been born are at least born into a situation where they will have the ability to receive food and care. Otherwise it’s not really a pro-life stance or principle. It doesn’t meant this is the right thing to do, but at least it’s a principle.
2 - Give women the right and freedom to control their own bodies. There’s some weird moral gray areas here - does the father have any right to the unborn child? Do abortions cause them harm? But again, at least there is a consistent principle: a woman’s right to choose. Doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily correct, but at least it’s a principle.
That first option never even appears in the US debate. Without a unifying principle that actually values human life, the notion that slimy creeps like Paul Ryan can claim their stance is pro-life is barely even propaganda.
We could all benefit from a complex debate about the morality of abortion and sovereignty of parenthood, but that’s not what we have. What we have is a harrowing, disgusting war on poor women, being waged largely by wealthy men. It needs to end.