Of course I've made this poll because the choice is not an obvious one, and you guys are entitled to your opinions. I am also entitled to mine, and to express my disappointment when these opinions are not shared by other posters.
Of course; and I'm just expressing my disappointment that you seemed to endorse TNF's intellectually dishonest smear of those who would, however regretfully, choose Option 2.
I think you're wrong on the facts here. Abortion is (in most cases) actually a relatively simple and inexpensive medical procedure; to say that restricting access to those who can pay out-of-pocket leaves it to a "privileged elite" is gross hyperbole. What actually does the heavy lifting of restricting abortion access are regulations like waiting periods and TRAP laws meant to hound abortion providers out of business. And I must regard a ten-week limit as of a piece with those sorts of measures- that is to say, as a practical matter it really does
more to limit equality of access to abortion than monetary issues would, because the primary obstacle to access is not strictly monetary, or at least does not intersect with class in quite so simple a manner.
Of course, it also should go without saying that privileging the most expansive theoretical freedom of choice and definitions of bodily autonomy would take precedence from a liberal philosophical perspective. I do also believe that, in pragmatic terms, the best way to expand "rights" and access for everyone is to articulate and encode a broad theoretical set of rights, and
then work on trying to make sure that everyone can exercise them. A right that everyone can theoretically access but not everyone has the means to is certainly worth less than one that everyone does have the means to exercise. But it is a great deal better than a right that
nobody has, because it really is the prerequisite for truly "universal" rights.