The Effect of "Abortion Rights" on the Political Landscape

[jamil]

You mean like the 23 states within which abortion was in some form legal at the time Roe v Wade was decided and the penumbra of the shadow was discovered?

You make my point. People can't abide other people living in a way they don't approve of. RvW was a bad ruling, made by activist judges, to make a law Congress didin't pass and the President didn't sign.

It wasn't enough for the 'all abortion all the time' wing of American politics then, what makes you think it will be now. Now they want a federal law enabling abortion, and after watching Johnson sell us out on Ukraine I'm not so sure that is out of reach

You're only acknowledging half the problem. We have a mechanism that can satisfy both sides except they can't abide the other getting to do it their way in their states. They look over there at that other states happily enjoying abortions or abortion bans. Well, we can't have that, they both say. Let's make a national law to ban all abortions! NO! Let's make a national law to legalize abortion up to the 3rd grade!

 

[BugI02]

On an average day in the US 2-3 women will die in childbirth.

You are considering the odds over the stakes, I think that is the pregnant woman’s decision alone to make.

This is specious, you have incorrectly identified exactly who is considering the odds over the stakes. If an activity (unprotected sex) has a possible consequence of death during childbirth, wouldn't the logical course be avoidance of the activity that involves a chance of death rather than rely on medical intervention to save ones life?

It is just another pretty lie to try to give some cover to the idea that a child can be killed because the 'mother' finds the circumstances of being pregnant inconvenient.

If only there were some way for the 'mother's' appetite for risky behavior to not involve pregnancy at all. How does that go? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

 

[jamil]

There is a point a person can lose that right as well. People are taken off of life support and allowed to die all the time.

Like I've been saying, I don't think they lose that right because they don't have it in the first place. They have the right not to be murdered. They have the right to pursue life. They don't have the right to require sustainable from others. When they have no ability to pursue life, that seems unfair. It's unfortunate but that's life.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Yes actually. I think it is more humane to do that. Letting someone die of suffocation, starvation, or organ failure is no better. I wouldn't let an animal suffer like that.

Well, if that's really your position, then I retract my above statement about you being illogical.

I just don't think you realize where this line of thinking ends up. Or perhaps you have, and you're just fine with seeing society go places that I am horrified of. I'm not sure which.

Once you've rejected the idea that every human being has an equal right to life, the barn door is open. If the right to life is not something inherent to a human being, but rather is dependent on how much capacity that particular human has for intelligence/consciousness/reason/feeling pain/whatever other criteria you insert, then inevitably you must come face to face with the fact that all human beings exist on a spectrum; everyone has those traits to a different degree. So if those traits are what the right to life depends on, then everyone will have varying degrees of the right to life.

It won't stop with people who are at the extreme ends of life. For most of human history, things have worked the way you lay them out: People considered some human beings to have greater value than others, some to have more of a right to life than others. This was manifest in illogical ways, like claiming that one race had more rights than another. But if we go back to that way of thinking, we're going to start seeing the logical ways it can be applied. Does the homeless guy whose drug-addled brain leaves him with less cognitive ability than a two-year-old really have the same right to life as the rest of humanity? Why can't society do away with him, rather than leave him to be a drain on the resources of those who have a greater right to life, due to their greater capacity for human thinking and feeling? Or if a frustrated mother decides to put down her autistic son, can we really call that murder? Shouldn't we recognize that the one with full mental abilities has greater rights over someone for whom those abilities are impaired? Or what if we discover that certain racial groups are further along in the process of evolution, and have greater average intelligence? Where does that logically leave us, if we have rejected the idea of innate, equal rights for every human being?

This is the point that I've been trying to make to @jamil for quite a while now. The idea that every human being has an inalienable right to life is radical, but it's not something that only religious people can come up with. The idea of an equal right to life of every human being has been a core of American society for a long time, and even though it has so far only been imperfectly implemented, it has already done tremendous good, and been one of the core reasons why society moved to end evils like slavery, racism, etc. You can't just get rid of the idea of an innate, universal right to life of every human being, and expect to still keep the societal benefits that logically followed from it. This is something that both secular and religious people can see, if they choose to.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Even in the best-case scenario a woman can only offer her unborn a chance at a live birth. No woman can guarantee her unborn a live birth…to argue that she is legally bound to provide one flies in the face of not only biology, but also logic and empathy.

A medical abortion is nothing more than a voluntary miscarriage...a misoprostol-only medical abortion does not kill the unborn directly, it triggers the natural biological process of stripping and emptying the uterus of its lining and contents, exactly as a miscarriage does.

Any right to life an unborn child has is entirely contingent on the cooperation of the mother’s body...If the body doesn’t consent, the pregnancy is miscarried.

I don‘t see why the mind has any less right to remove consent to pregnancy that the body itself does.

From my perspective the truth is self-evident: Involuntary miscarriage is not homicide, and voluntary miscarriage is not murder.

Let me just make sure I'm understanding correctly: Have you changed your position?

If your position is just that a mother can remove consent for the child to be in her body, and, without directly killing the child, seek to deliberately start the process of expelling the child from her body, than that's a far cry from what you were claiming earlier, that the mother has the right to do anything whatsoever to the child inside her, including kill, mutilate, and torture him/her. If your new line of argument is just that the mother isn't legally bound to let her child have the natural care her body would give to it without artificial intervention, then I must say we're a lot closer in our conclusions, if maybe not in our logic.

But as to why I believe that voluntary miscarriage is still wrong, let me try to put it this way: Please read the following, and tell me why it works any less logically than what you wrote:


Even in the best-case scenario a caretaker can only offer her child a chance at making it to adulthood. No caretaker can guarantee her child will live to maturity…to argue that she is legally bound to do so flies in the face of not only biology, but also logic and empathy.

Euthanizing a baby is nothing more than voluntarily allowing the baby to die...a starvation-only medical euthanization does not kill the baby directly, it triggers the natural biological process of the baby's body losing nutrients and ceasing to function, exactly as if the mother died leaving the child alone in the wild.

Any right to life a newborn baby has is entirely contingent on the cooperation of the caretaker's body...If the body doesn’t consent, the baby passes away.

I don‘t see why the mind has any less right to remove consent to caring for a baby that the body itself does.

From my perspective the truth is self-evident: Involuntarily letting a baby to starve is not homicide, and voluntarily causing a baby to starve is not murder.


And lest you think the above is all hypothetical, I would ask you to consider this woman, who withdrew her consent to care for her baby:

Mom who left toddler at home while on 10-day holiday gets life sentence for murder - National | Globalnews.ca

Kristel Candelario was charged with murder after she returned home from a trip to Detroit and Puerto Rico and found her 16-month-old daughter unresponsive.

globalnews.ca

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Why compare the old coot to the yuppie?

Someone on life support would make a better point. But even by that point, does the person on life support have a right to have their life supported by other people’s machines? Indefinitely?

You don’t have a right to life exactly. Wouldn’t that imply you have a right to make others sustain you? You have a right to pursue life within your means. That means some people have more resources than others, unfortunate as that may be. Even for the old coot who looks like he’s ready to cuss out nurse Crachet. If he’s broke. Them’s the breaks.. except we have a spot of socialism to spread out the access to life saving care.

And why does the zygote have the same right to life? The right to make the mother carry it to term? I think rather, the parents have a moral responsibility to care for the unborn life that they participated in creating. Just like the children have a moral responsibility to care for their parents in their later life.

So we're getting stuck on terminology again.

For me, when I talk about rights, it is my understanding that properly speaking, all true, innate human rights are negative. In other words, if it's something that others have to provide for you, like healthcare or voting, those aren't really human rights, those are just things that our society ought, in justice, to provide without undue discrimination. But if you don't have something when you're by yourself on a deserted island, then it's not a natural human right.

So when I say "right to life" what I mean is what you mean when you say "right to not be murdered." I agree that "right to not be murdered" conveys the idea more accurately.

So, now, to answer "Why compare the old coot to the yuppie? Someone on life support would make a better point."

The reason why I chose an old man rather than someone on life support is because I want to specifically hone in on the "right to not be murdered" and not the "right" (that isn't actually a right) to be supported by others' machines.

So far we've reached the point where we agree that there is something special about humans that makes it immoral to kill them. I am then attempting to argue that for society to have stable, consistent morals, our only option is to recognize a universal, equal right to life not be murdered of every human being. You, on the other hand, if I have understood correctly, say "No, not every human being has an equal right to not be murdered. A zygote has less right to not be murdered than a 25-weeks-gestation baby because it has less capacity to feel pain, emotion, reason, contemplate its own existence, etc. And a 25-weeks-gestation baby has less right to not be murdered than a 10-year-old girl for the same reason."

So I'm asking you, if having less capacity to feel pain, emotion, and think rationally/in the distinctly "human" way can lessen someone's right to not be murdered, do we or do we not apply that across the board for all humans? If an old coot at 80 years old has reached the point that his senses and mental faculties alike have dulled to where he has noticeably less ability to feel pain, reason, etc, than a 25-year-old yuppie, does his right to not be murdered diminish accordingly? If no, why not? Can you make the case for why not without starting from a religious standpoint?

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I'm gonna say that you've never been involved with Hospice with an elder family member then. Nothing more than poisoning / overdosing with morphine, oxycodone and or fentanyl.
Its a rhetorical answer.

Well you've got a point there. Euthanasia through pain killers is a real thing, and yes, I am aware of it.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I don't expect you to alter your beliefs. What I'm hoping to accomplish with this line of conversation, is to establish what an outlier you are, and how foolish the GOP was to ever get so involved with people like you. Because this was intended to be a political thread, and you don't even really believe in exceptions for the life of the mother.

Again, I don't deny this: from a political standpoint, yes, my position is foolish and non-viable.

You want the State to forcibly strap that life-endangered woman to a table, and cut that life out of them, for the possible future benefit of some other couple. In your suggested solution, the 10 year-old girl was raped once, and now she's going to be surgically raped again, in a figurative sense, for the imputed future benefit of a fetus and a hypothetical adoptive family. She is not going to just "snap back," physically or mentally, from that act adjudicated upon her by the State.

Let me clarify. I don't want either a C-section or an adoption to be imposed on her by the state. I merely offered those two things as viable alternatives to killing the baby outright. If she and her family make a different choice, I don't think the state should intervene, just so long as their choice doesn't involve killing an innocent person. Again, it all hinges on whether or not you consider a 6-months-gestation baby a "person."

What you're also forgetting is that the presumed adoptive family likely won't even exist, because the bio-mom (and/or family) gets a vote in whether the child is put up for adoption. America today isn't the sort of idealized redistributor of infants that you seem to imagine. Ever since Lyndon Johnson turned babies into paychecks from the State, through the magic of Food Stamps/SNAP/WIC/AFDC, these tots don't get swept away by Julie Andrews to go live in a mountaintop orphanage where singing nuns raise them to be responsible citizens. Once she's forced to bear this child, the "family" (?) is at least equally likely in modern America to keep it and raise it in substandard conditions, at public expense, to eventually become a social burden on the rest of us (and quite possibly a criminal one).

I have to admit that pro-choice arguments are certainly diverse. A few pages ago I was debating with someone who claimed that abortion needs to be legal because our government doesn't provide enough benefits, and now here I am reading that abortion needs to happen because there are too many benefits.

Well either way, it's really all beside the point. I don't disagree with you for a moment about the problematic nature of the "family" situation the newborn baby would be thrust into. But again, it just comes back to perspective. You would never consider it an option to euthanize a toddler who is in the situation of just being a welfare paycheck for a "family" that doesn't even provide for his/her basic needs. You would agree that fixing the situation, or moving the child to a different situation, is the solution, not killing it. So just extend that logic to my perspective, where I see the 6-months-gestation child as having the same rights as the 2-year-old. Naturally I'm not going to favor killing the child to preemptively get them out of a problematic situation.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

"What I'm hoping to accomplish with this line of conversation, is to establish what an outlier you are, and how foolish the GOP was to ever get so involved with people like you."

How to win friends and influence enemies
Written By Twangbanger

I mean, from a purely political perspective, he's not wrong. Even I can see that.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Well, I'm not asking you to back down from your beliefs. Just consider political consequences of insisting that policy must be your way or the highway. It should tell you that it's not time for such a policy. It's far outside Overton's Window and the people just won't tolerate such a law. Try to change hearts and minds before trying to push very unpopular legislation.

It will likely cost Republicans 2024 elections. And then you guys will be complaining that the election was rigged, without considering that maybe voters thought about how those mean Republicans made that little girl travel to Indiana to get an abortion.



Pretty much. That's 10 year old's story is the textbook case against banning abortion. And it was timed perfectly.

Let me try to make this clear: I am not advocating that we vote only for politicians who support 100%, total abortion bans this fall. I am not advocating that we ignore the political landscape.

I am merely trying to do exactly what you say: change hearts and minds. If you recall, there was another thread that was dedicated only to the political aspects, and OP wanted all discussion of the moral aspects left out. That thread was incredibly boring, and died off quickly, because the political aspects are obvious, and nobody with a grip on reality can really argue about them. This thread was branched off specifically so we can discuss the moral aspects alongside the political ones. That includes 2 things:

1) Trying to advocate for a certain moral position, which is exactly what I'm trying to do, in order, as you say, to change hearts and minds.

2) Discussing the degree to which people of certain moral beliefs can compromise those beliefs in view of political reality.

If feel like #2 has seen a lot less discussion, and I think it's because in order to discuss #2, you have to have at least a vague idea of where a person is coming from on #1. And I might venture to say, that I am just starting to get the feeling that this task might not be the most quick and easy process in the world.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Just because I find the whole debate over the exact line of where failure to provide sustenance to another's life switches over to murder, and because I haven't made enough posts in a row already, I have a hypothetical scenario I'd like to ask about, on the off chance that any of my interlocutors in this thread are still reading my posts and I haven't already thoroughly destroyed any desire they have to further respond (my apologies! Brevity has never been my strong suit.)

Suppose you are out at sea in your sailboat. Far enough from shore that a typical man couldn't swim to shore without drowning, but close enough that you can get back reasonably quickly in your boat. There are no other boats within sight. The weather forecast says a storm may be coming soon, so you decide to head for land. You hear a splash then a thump behind you, and turn around to see that, without bothering to ask permission first, a man has climbed out of the water into your boat. Exhausted and panting, he explains that his boat sank, and he had been swimming for hours before managing to get to your boat. His speech is barely audible, as he almost completely lost his voice from yelling for help while he was still too far away to be heard. Looking around, you assess the situation. It's your boat, and he doesn't have a right to be on it without your consent. There is also a very small, but non-zero chance that the storm blows in more quickly than expected, and his extra weight ends up being the difference that keeps you from making it to shore in time, so you both end up dying in the storm. Given that this is your boat, after all, you decide that you are the only one who should decide the odds, and you decide you don't like them. So you decide to voluntarily withdraw your consent for him to be on your boat, and grabbing a plank, you forcefully assist him over the side of your boat into the water, and then immediately head for shore as fast a you can, while he futilely swims behind attempting to catch up, and eventually drowns.

What do you think? In this scenario, did the hypothetical "you" commit murder? Did "you" do anything wrong at all?

 

[LeftyGunner]

This is specious, you have incorrectly identified exactly who is considering the odds over the stakes. If an activity (unprotected sex) has a possible consequence of death during childbirth, wouldn't the logical course be avoidance of the activity that involves a chance of death rather than rely on medical intervention to save ones life?

It is just another pretty lie to try to give some cover to the idea that a child can be killed because the 'mother' finds the circumstances of being pregnant inconvenient.

If only there were some way for the 'mother's' appetite for risky behavior to not involve pregnancy at all. How does that go? "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

Yeah…those careless 10 year-olds just need consequences for being too sexy around their stepfathers.

Your position is so extreme your entire state voted against even considering it again…ever.

Even your precious orange god-emperor knows your position is self-defeating and he is desperate to keep that albatross from around his own neck. Look… as stupid as trump is even he knows your position leads to more legal abortions and fewer won elections for your side.

I can’t thank you enough, you write my arguments for me.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

A medical abortion is nothing more than a voluntary miscarriage...a misoprostol-only medical abortion does not kill the unborn directly, it triggers the natural biological process of stripping and emptying the uterus of its lining and contents, exactly as a miscarriage does.

This is demonic.

 

[LeftyGunner]

Let me just make sure I'm understanding correctly: Have you changed your position?

No, not at all…I am illustrating what I consider another facet of the same argument/position.

I like looking at things from different perspectives and seeing how that affects my positions.

If your position is just that a mother can remove consent for the child to be in her body, and, without directly killing the child, seek to deliberately start the process of expelling the child from her body, than that's a far cry from what you were claiming earlier, that the mother has the right to do anything whatsoever to the child inside her, including kill, mutilate, and torture him/her. If your new line of argument is just that the mother isn't legally bound to let her child have the natural care her body would give to it without artificial intervention, then I must say we're a lot closer in our conclusions, if maybe not in our logic.

The vast majority of abortions in the US are pharmaceutically-induced miscarriages. I think that is ethically very different from choosing a D&C abortion without an underpinning of medical urgency.

Personally, I don’t think a D&C abortion is morally justifiable outside of medical necessity…BUT…I think “medical necessity” should always be decided by doctors and their patients…never by the government

But as to why I believe that voluntary miscarriage is still wrong, let me try to put it this way: Please read the following, and tell me why it works any less logically than what you wrote:


Even in the best-case scenario a caretaker can only offer her child a chance at making it to adulthood. No caretaker can guarantee her child will live to maturity…to argue that she is legally bound to do so flies in the face of not only biology, but also logic and empathy.

Euthanizing a baby is nothing more than voluntarily allowing the baby to die...a starvation-only medical euthanization does not kill the baby directly, it triggers the natural biological process of the baby's body losing nutrients and ceasing to function, exactly as if the mother died leaving the child alone in the wild.

Any right to life a newborn baby has is entirely contingent on the cooperation of the caretaker's body...If the body doesn’t consent, the baby passes away.

I don‘t see why the mind has any less right to remove consent to caring for a baby that the body itself does.

From my perspective the truth is self-evident: Involuntarily letting a baby to starve is not homicide, and voluntarily causing a baby to starve is not murder.

The logical difference is simple: one of these scenarios takes place entirely in public, the other takes place entirely inside a woman’s body.

The Public has a say about what I do in public…but not inside my own body…that is my own sovereign domain.

And lest you think the above is all hypothetical, I would ask you to consider this woman, who withdrew her consent to care for her baby:

Mom who left toddler at home while on 10-day holiday gets life sentence for murder - National | Globalnews.ca

Kristel Candelario was charged with murder after she returned home from a trip to Detroit and Puerto Rico and found her 16-month-old daughter unresponsive.

globalnews.ca

Delivery can kill you…from my perspective that’s a legitimate enough reason to choose not to experience it, regardless of the consequences to the unborn.

Once a mother has survived delivery that legitimacy is gone.

 

[LeftyGunner]

This is demonic.

No, this is biology.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No, this is biology.

Biology used for demonic purposes. Dress it up with all the obfuscating verbiage you will, it's still the willful and purposeful taking of an innocent life. This hideous gaslighting works on the masses but I'm not fooled.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

No, not at all…I am illustrating what I consider another facet of the same argument/position.

I like looking at things from different perspectives and seeing how that affects my positions.

Got it.

The vast majority of abortions in the US are pharmaceutically-induced miscarriages. I think that is ethically very different from choosing a D&C abortion without an underpinning of medical urgency.

Personally, I don’t think a D&C abortion is morally justifiable outside of medical necessity…BUT…I think “medical necessity” should always be decided by doctors and their patients…never by the government

I suppose even I can discern a degree of moral difference between a D&C abortion versus a misoprostol-only induced abortion. To me, it's about the same difference as dismembering a newborn, vs. leaving the newborn to die in the woods. Both immoral, but I'll admit a degree of difference.

The logical difference is simple: one of these scenarios takes place entirely in public, the other takes place entirely inside a woman’s body.

The Public has a say about what I do in public…but not inside my own body…that is my own sovereign domain.

Regarding this principle of bodily sovereignty, I have a real-life example I want to ask you about, but first, if you'll humor me, can I ask you about a ridiculously contorted and far-fetched hypothetical?

Suppose there is a woman driving to an appointment for a late-term abortion at 7 months pregnant. She gets in a car wreck, which throws her into labor. An ambulance arrives, and she delivers the baby in the ambulance just as they reach the hospital. The doctor who was going to perform the abortion comes to see her, and she pleads that she really doesn't want this baby, can we do anything about it? The doctor thinks for a second, and then says, well, if you'll let me do a sort of "reverse C-section", I'll open your womb and put the baby back in. Once the baby is back in your body, that's your sovereign domain, so if you want I can just snip the baby's neck, then pull it back out, and viola! problem solved. The women immediately agrees, and the doctor carries out the procedure, just as he described.

In your view, should what the doctor did in this scenario be illegal? Would you consider it murder?

Yes, I know this above hypothetical is ridiculously contorted and far-fetched, and I'm also pretty sure that I already know the answer regarding how your perspective would classify what the doctor did as wrong. I'd just like to hear it, in your own words, to be sure I'm understanding you.

Delivery can kill you…from my perspective that’s a legitimate enough reason to choose not to experience it, regardless of the consequences to the unborn.

Once a mother has survived delivery that legitimacy is gone.

Is there any limit regarding how high the odds of death have to be before it grants one the right to kill another human? I think I can at least grasp the idea behind the bodily sovereignty idea (though to me it still doesn't explain what happens to the unborn child's bodily sovereignty) but the idea that abortion can also be justified due to a minuscule chance of death during delivery is bit more out there, to me.

For instance: Hypothetically, every single living human right now is producing carbon dioxide, and if one believes that carbon dioxide can create a warming effect on the environment that could produce more severe natural disasters, then every other human being drawing breath right now is, albeit by the most infinitesimal amount, increasing my odds of dying. Of course this doesn't mean that we just go around killing each other, so what is the bar? What percentage chance has to exist that another human being will cause my death before I can kill them?

 

[KLB]

Delivery can kill you…from my perspective that’s a legitimate enough reason to choose not to experience it, regardless of the consequences to the unborn.

A woman can die from getting an abortion too.

 

[jamil]

Just because I find the whole debate over the exact line of where failure to provide sustenance to another's life switches over to murder, and because I haven't made enough posts in a row already, I have a hypothetical scenario I'd like to ask about, on the off chance that any of my interlocutors in this thread are still reading my posts and I haven't already thoroughly destroyed any desire they have to further respond (my apologies! Brevity has never been my strong suit.)

Suppose you are out at sea in your sailboat. Far enough from shore that a typical man couldn't swim to shore without drowning, but close enough that you can get back reasonably quickly in your boat. There are no other boats within sight. The weather forecast says a storm may be coming soon, so you decide to head for land. You hear a splash then a thump behind you, and turn around to see that, without bothering to ask permission first, a man has climbed out of the water into your boat. Exhausted and panting, he explains that his boat sank, and he had been swimming for hours before managing to get to your boat. His speech is barely audible, as he almost completely lost his voice from yelling for help while he was still too far away to be heard. Looking around, you assess the situation. It's your boat, and he doesn't have a right to be on it without your consent. There is also a very small, but non-zero chance that the storm blows in more quickly than expected, and his extra weight ends up being the difference that keeps you from making it to shore in time, so you both end up dying in the storm. Given that this is your boat, after all, you decide that you are the only one who should decide the odds, and you decide you don't like them. So you decide to voluntarily withdraw your consent for him to be on your boat, and grabbing a plank, you forcefully assist him over the side of your boat into the water, and then immediately head for shore as fast a you can, while he futilely swims behind attempting to catch up, and eventually drowns.

What do you think? In this scenario, did the hypothetical "you" commit murder? Did "you" do anything wrong at all?

I like that hypothetical. I’ll be posting on that when I have time.

 

[BugI02]

Yeah…those careless 10 year-olds just need consequences for being too sexy around their stepfathers.

Your position is so extreme your entire state voted against even considering it again…ever.

Hardly the entire state. 56.78% of those who voted supported unrestricted abortion (turnout was less than half of eligible voters, 49.63% - so 28.18% of eligible voters were in favor)

It was so existential that more voters voted to legalize weed (57.19%)

Even your precious orange god-emperor knows your position is self-defeating and he is desperate to keep that albatross from around his own neck. Look… as stupid as trump is even he knows your position leads to more legal abortions and fewer won elections for your side.

I can’t thank you enough, you write my arguments for me.

And again with the edge cases, the ten year old who needed an abortion

Cover for the undeniable fact that cases of the concern for the mother's life are negligible (0.2%)

Cases of rape and/or incest are similarly minuscule (0.3%)

Physical but non-existential concerns, which contain the mental health loophole, 2.5%

Fetal abnormality, 1.3%

And the remaining 95.7% are elective, ex post facto birth control for people too lazy or stupid or entitled to take precautions

Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion - Lozier Institute

Originally published on August 17, 2022, and has been updated on January 14, 2023. To view this fact sheet as a PDF, see: Fact Sheet: Reasons for Abortion After the Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, states across the country are considering and enacting laws...

lozierinstitute.org

Rape and incest: 0.3%[5]
Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function: 0.2%[6]
Other physical health concerns: 2.5%[7]
Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.3%[8]
Elective and unspecified reasons: 95.7%[9]

And you are defending their culpability with propaganda and lies

Shades of 80 year old black grandmothers who don't drive and don't have ID