If the principle of unwinding is that the kid is still alive but in a divided state, wouldn't the money Emby inherited from his mother belong to him even after unwinding - divided up among those who would have received body parts, perhaps? - instead of his aunt being able to lay claim to it to finance her kids' college education? Parents who care enough about their kid to pay for a very expensive transplant to keep him alive presumably didn't include a clause in their wills stating that, if his aunt decided to have him unwound, she could have his inheritance.
Most people aren't willing to believe that their family are the kind of people who would do anything for money. It's what keeps the Black Widows and the Blue Beards of the World employed.
How is Unwinding supposed to do anything to help those who need an abortion? It seems to be more a way to get rid of unwanted teens than avoid the severe, potentially fatal, medical complications that pregnancy can cause, or having to gestate the product of rape/incest, or the medical bills for handling the pregnancy, or the cost of raising the kid for ten years . . . basically, any reason that actual humans might have for considering an abortion.
It doesn't do anything to help them. I think that was the idea behind proposing the Bill of Life. It wasn't supposed to be seen as a solution. To make matters worse, the practice of storking means that there's another way that people lose the right to decide whether or not they want a baby; if one is left on your doorstop, you have no (legal) option but to keep it, raise it and provide for it, for at least thirteen years.
Unwholly confirms that you were right - unwinding is not supported because of being a solution to abortion, but rather, to keep teens under control and to eliminate the ones who cause trouble.
How is Unwinding even managing to go on? Aside from the fact that the process is so deep into Art Major Biology that it nearly hits Critical Research Failure, it also violates some long-established laws and codes of ethics, which in and of themselves would be pretty much sufficient to ensure nobody does the research. The premise itself is a Wall Banger if you know any of the science involved here, really...
I find this page rather reassuring; the number of positive reviews I encountered relative to the swear words used by me upon hearing the concept made me despair for humanity. More on topic, maybe it's set in a world where Reality Is Unrealistic — literally, Biology Does Not Work That Way. Like the Matrix Omake in HPMOR.
"Neither the pro-lifers or the pro-choicers won." Uh, no. The pro-lifers won. Abortion is no longer legal, but unwinding is, which is not the same thing, because a teenager is not equivalent to a fetus. Not even close.
The Pro-Lifers started slaughtering teenagers because its convenient, even if they could have cured cancer or plugged up the ozone layer. They have become the very thing they hated.
Why is the process of Unwinding considered a "compromise" between pro-choice and pro-life? It violates the central ideas of both schools of thought. People can no longer choose what to do about unwanted pregnancies—storking means they aren't going to be raising the kid, but it doesn't solve the medical or psychological issues that can come with being pregnant. And if pro-lifers consider a clump of cells that hasn't developed a nervous system yet too sacred to get rid of, then it's unlikely they would support chopping up teenagers. It's like an anti-compromise, if anything. It just seems unlikely that people would agree to this.
It's a fair point, but two reasons come to mind. Firstly, ending a war was a tasty incentive. Books like 'The Shock Doctrine' show how states of crisis can allow unwanted, and generally unpopular laws and policies to slip through (in the real world). In essence, Reality is Unrealistic and humans are not always rational, especially when the trustworthy news channels blow up with reports of feral teens. If people can get behind the ethnic cleansing of people they've lived amongst for decades/centuries, the unwinding compromise doesnt seem so far fetched. All of this is lampshaded in the book itself. The second reason is, of course, all the B.S. about the unwound not being dead, but merely 'being in a divided state' etc. etc. Instead of tangible foetus deaths, you have abstract arguments of 'what measure is a human' and the nature of death, which is sufficiently complex to allow most people to stop thinking about it and classify it, in Terry Pratchett terms, as 'somebody else's problem'