Subject: Re: They working Abortion
There's no way to know for sure, but I think that socially conservative anti-abortion advocates genuinely didn't understand the scope of the medical health issues involved with pregnancy and abortion.

I think that's true. My example of a woman seeking late-term abortion I think illustrates that. (i.e. if she carried a fetus for 7 months, and then sought abortion, she clearly wanted it...but something changed, probably something very bad.)

I will say that I can at least respect the differing viewpoint if it's consistent. IOW, no exception for rape or incest or health of the mother. To be clear, I vehemently disagree with that. But it is logically consistent. They maintain it is a human life. If that is the position, then any abortion is murder. Rape? Not the fetal-human's fault. Incest? Not the fetal-human's fault. Can't punish it for that (which killing it would be, if we consider it a human life with full human rights). When you start making exceptions, you are saying that events beyond the "baby's" control determine its rights. Which is against the initial premise (i.e. it's a human life with all the associated rights).

I think them granting the exceptions is just a way to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else, and later they'll try to remove the exceptions. Kari Lake has said "no exceptions", so she's going for it. Her view is logically consistent, but it's hurting her because most people don't agree with drawing "the line" at "no abortions ever".

Also, if it's a human life, and the mother doesn't want the pregnancy, then I still think a good lawyer could make the argument that it violates the 13th Amendment. In fact, the argument for that would be stronger than the argument in Roe (which you laid out several years ago on TMF).