It's a complex issue IMO and not one which should be decided by party politics. A conscience vote is definately appropriate on this one.
I am not opposed to abortion as such. There is certainly a valid argument about human life being valuable, but then how far does one take this? Is a woman who is not constantly pregnant (whether married or not) guilty of denying some unborn child the right to exist? Is a man who refuses to enable such things to occur also guilty, even if he has never met the woman before? It's causing the loss of a potential human life after all. What about those who argue for no sex before marriage? Are they not directly arguing for losing the opportunity to create a human life? Lots of issues here and I could argue that the conservative moral view is taking both sides at once.
In that context I don't see that terminating a pregnancy is overly different to not causing one in the first place provided that it is done in a medically / scientifically appropriate manner. It's one less person alive either way.
On the other hand there is the moral argument about saving existing human life and that the unborn child is already an existing life. We go to extraordinarly lengths to save the life of adults far beyond the level which could be justified on pure medical, scientific or economic grounds. Why not treat unborn children the same way? But then why not treat an unfertilised egg the same way...
Overall there is no shortage of people on this planet. Indeed the population continues to rapidly increase at a time when the negative effects of this on resource use, environment etc. are becomming increasingly obvious. It is a fact that the level of food production required to feed the current population has NEVER been achieved without heavy reliance on petrochemicals and other mineral inputs including aquifer (ground water) drawdown and consumption of natural gas and phospate rock (as fertilizers). With present technology the world's population is literally eating non-renewable resouces. The question is when, not if, this must end since no serious scientist or geologist doubts that such mineral resouces are ultimately limited. The debate is about how much we have, not that it is limited.
So I can't see any case, apart from the operation of the banking system which is a human construct which could be changed, which argues that the world actually needs a higher population. Indeed there is evidence that either we need radical technology improvement or a
lower world population. This situation of resource limits is no different to that applying to any other species and indeed humans go as far as to actively kill adult members of other species to limit their population in recognition of this reality. Either limit numbers or the whole lot faces a lack of food once the stocks are eaten.
And so I take the scientific view. I am not opposed to abortion provided it is done in a manner which does not cause suffering to the unborn child. I acknowledge that there is debate about this point. That said, I certainly don't propose that abortion be used as a population control method despite mention of the issues there. That is simply a reason to not oppose it IMO rather than a reason to encourage it.
I certainly do believe in many Christian principles although I am not an active church goer. I do not believe that the Bible proscribes specific inflexible actions but rather general principles. Different people have different interpretations there. One of those responsibilties IMO is to future generations and hence the population issue. There is also a responsibility to prevent suffering. Under present attitudes in society an unwanted pregnancy does induce suffering on the part of the mother and in many cases father. Of course it could be argued that both had an opportunity to avoid it in the first place, but then that also represents a loss of a potential human life. If we have every woman constantly pumping out children then we're going to end up in serious trouble with population numbers...
Complex issues. Wilst I am not opposed to abortion I do have some concerns that this drug may not be the best means of doing it. Various reports I have heard (though I haven't seriously studied the subject) indicate that medical outcomes are somewhat worse than a surgical abortion in terms of risk.
To my understanding the drug also has other non-abortion uses under some circumstances.
How would I have voted? Personally I would want to know more about the issues of this drug versus surgical abortion as I don't think that has been properly considered in a debate which has focused heavily on moral issues. To me they are separate. The moral issue is whether or not to allow abortion in the first place and that has already been decided. The medical issue, the proper subject of this debate IMO, is how to perform abortions given that they are already legal. Completely different issues. If on medical grounds the drug is an appropriate means of performing an abortion then I am in favour of it, I not then I oppose it. I don't have sufficient information there but certainly think that science is the proper basis for a decision. I am, however, certainly in favour of it's use for other purposes to the extent that they exist provided that normal drug assessment proceedures determines safety etc.
With regard to this being a woman's issue, I would argue that there are two parents of any child. In a majority of cases that I have become aware of where there is dispute between parents about having children, it is the woman who wants the child and in general this is for purely economic reasons. Very sad but true and I suspect that most would know of at least one case of a woman using pregnancy as a means of gaining financial advantage. Very sad and totally immoral in my opinon but there is too much evidence to deny that it happens. Indeed I see that as a more serious moral issue worthy of debate than whether or not to introduce this drug (since abortion is already a legal proceedure and this is simply about the means). Suffice to say that I have serious concerns about the raising of children in single parent families where their reason for being is economic. .
Does a woman have a right to terminate? IMO yes. But where there is clear evidence that the woman has intentionally fallen pregnant for economic reasons I believe that the father also ought to have the right to request that the pregnancy be terminated. The law views that the child has two parents and if one parent has already acted in a manner not conducive to the long term wellbeing of the child then I believe that the other parent, either the father in this case or the mother in other cases, ought to have the right to make such decisions. On the other hand, if it is accepted that it is the woman's decision to make then I contend that the law ought to state that the mothher, not the father, is responsible for the child in all respects. It seems incredibly unjust to have responsibility shared but only one parent having authority on the matter. That is morally wrong in terms of the effects on adults IMO. For the record, my own mother was never married and I have no ongoing contact with my father. Importantly however, there was no money involved since my mother shares the view that whoever has authority also has absolute responsibility.
As a closing comment, I am very aware that this is a highly controversial topic. I have stated my views and am willing to debate them in a sensible manner but no hatred on the forum please. You have a right to your views and I have a right to mine. As adults we should be able to agree to disagree but still have an intelligent discussion on the subject.