I'd hope we could all agree that better sex education and making access to contraceptives easier would be a great way to lower the number of abortions. But many of the states that have restricted access also ban such practices, mandate abstinence-only education in schools, etc. Why not mandate that any hospital that receives federal funds must provide contraceptive RX/shots at low or no cost? If abortion is so bad why oppose easy wins?
IMHO that says more about the real motivations than anything else. It has nothing to do with a child's life - the same politicians oppose the child tax credit and cut funding for early education, child healthcare programs, etc. The real purpose is to punish "those dirty whores" for living a lifestyle they don't approve of. Sometimes for personal reasons, sometimes for religious reasons. So they use the power of the state (the barrel of a gun) to force people to conform to their view of what is right - a minority view I might add.
I happen to think that's immoral and a misuse of state power. It is also incompatible with true conservatism, libertarianism, liberalism, and progressivism.
My preferred solution would be to make it much easier to avoid an unwanted pregnancy as well as much easier to have a child and keep them healthy, including with lots of financial subsidies. But so far almost none of the anti-abortion crowd are interested in any of that - in fact many vehemently oppose some or all of those things.
Have you stopped to consider why? For example why not free universal prenatal care and child healthcare? Subsidized daycare and after school care. Money? If we are talking about lives here saying money is the reason admits a human life has a dollar value... so pay women to carry a pregnancy to term then. But of course arguments against that say it would encourage women to have a baby when they shouldn't... but if life is precious then is not creating a life immoral? Why or why not? There are so many extensions of these arguments worth considering.
I would encourage anyone who is so certain of their moral position to spend at least a tiny bit of time considering these things honestly - without reference to "God said so" because we may not agree on the existence of God, who God's representative is, or whether God supposedly said what you think he said - which makes basing the use of the state's coercive power on "God" a massive problem and incompatible with religious freedom at the least.
Imagine you travel on an airplane, and the owner of the airplane drops of you off on the middle of the trip just because it's his property. That's your view.
Your analogy (well, metaphor, really) is flawed, on multiple levels.
First, I as a traveler presumably have agency, probably paid for the privilege, and you agreed in advance to transport me.
It is undisputed that I am a fully realized human being with all attendant rights, such as they are.
But even the ways in which your metaphor is not flawed don't support your point of view.
My presence aboard, having been agreed to ahead of time, is assumed not to pose any costs, danger, difficulty, or hardship that isn't accounted for by the ticket I bought, but most importantly, if ANY of that changes the owner (or rather, operator) of the aircraft absolutely DOES have the right and even obligation to put me off the plane at the earliest opportunity (including making an unscheduled stop for that purpose), for offenses as mild as simply being somewhat unpleasant toward the other passengers or crew, much less acting in a way that may actually be threatening or frightening.
As a passenger, transportation is a privilege, not a right, and said privilege can be revoked at any time, despite having been paid for in advance.
Also, in case you never paid any attention to the legalities of purchasing a ticket for air travel, despite having taken your money, the airline really isn't obligated to do more than make a best effort attempt to get you (and/or your luggage) to your destination. Their best effort doesn't even have to be particularly good or effective, which is how and why people end up stranded or stuck with little to no reason or recourse.
That's your argument.
To extend your metaphor a bit, what if you didn't invite me aboard, and I'm a stowaway? Or a hijacker who wants to divert the plane to a different destination?
What if my presence isn't merely inconvenient, but actually hazardous?
we will never see eye-to-eye on this on an ideological level, which I think exemplifies the importance of it being a personal choice!
That's the point, actually.
People want to have sex without actually breeding. No method of contraception is 100% effective, so there are options for ending unwanted pregnancies.