Since
@GO-NAD! did such a poor job of stirring the pot...
(I'm just kidding) here's my two cents. I don't understand all the expert terms used in US law, but I did notice something I'd like to comment.
From my point of view, you again agreed upon this "shifting of the center of the debate". You all went along with this "rape and health issues" when it comes to abortion. This would imply you all agree it's wrong?
I think that a woman should be able to get an abortion even if she's just bored that afternoon or couldn't find anything better to do. (Deliberately putting it bluntly) It is not a woman's right if it only concerns the instances of poor health or trauma. Women include human beings with good health and with no trauma as well.
The point of this woman's right is to prevent Church to "colonize" woman's body using State by proxy.
This in itself should be enough to make this right be written in law and worthwhile.
It is about what it's preventing.
Women should have the complete agency over their bodies. The abortion should be legal, painless, done by very polite and decent experts, with no last minute pressure from the Church or lawyers, doctors, teachers of philosophy/ethics... (All of those are very welcome before the pregnancy if a woman wants them.)
I'm gonna use a silly example to portray what I mean; if in some fantastical, fairy-tale world, human beings procreated via eggs, I would retreat in my position. If it was so that as soon as an egg gets inseminated it comes out of a woman in a day or two, in a hard enclosing and develops further without the need of the human (women's) body, I would defend the position that preventing such a procreation would be utterly useless and unfounded.
I believe human beings procreate in such a way that simply requires the female to welcome the pregnancy.
This is why I don't care for the fingernails, toes, heartbeats, beginning of the life etc. and all those bellow the belt punches that people who don't agree with me use to induce guilt trip.
