You don't have to agree with their axioms to understand how a small number of simple axioms lead to their beliefs, right?
The hard truth that few people talk about is that very few people believe in banning early abortions of unviable fetuses or in cases of rape, very few people believe in allowing elective abortions of viable fetuses in the 40th week, and it's hard to find an objective scientific line in the middle ground.
It's a problem requiring a very nuanced compromise in a society that has a very hard time with nuance, and as a result, is having a harder and harder time with compromise.
You don't need an objective scientific line; any sort policy being codified into law (in any context, not just abortion) will be subject to interpetation, exceptions, and context. Instead, you just need a reasonable compromise. And as far as reasonable compromises go, we had a quite good one until hours ago, when states began stripping our rights away.
It is possible to be against abortion for oneself while also supporting the rights of other people to make that decision themselves. Abortion is not a recreational drug that people take just to have a good time, it's a harrowing medical procedure that is unfortunately necessary.
I agree with you there. It's just the snarky tone of your higher up post seemed to indicate an over-simplified view of the anti-choice stance. I disagree with them, but they aren't necessarily stupid or insincere.
