SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Endus]

I responded specifically on the charge of relabeling. I know that in everybody's subjective appreciation, certain causes have no right to the label. And in your own mind, you could say the brand ought to be called anything from pro-terrorist to anti-human-existence. But when you're commenting publicly, you have the choice to use the terms each other would prefer to describe their position (or the commonly accepted ones), or pick your own for them. My only comment is the past history of the thread, when people said I had no right to say "pro-aborts," and or that I ought to say "pro-choice." My response was that no such courtesy has been extended to my side of the debate, so I'll continue uses such terms as I think fit the situation.

Plenty of us are using "pro-life" just fine. Maybe you've got us on Ignore if you can't see our posts? Crafting yourself a specific echo chamber and then complaining about the acoustics really is a "you" problem.

There will always be a second body in bodily autonomy arguments.

1> No, there isn't. Stop insisting we accept your religious dogma as fact.
2> Even if there wasn't, bodily autonomy always trumps right to life. Even if it's just convenience/preference on the part of the one expressing bodily autonomy. No pro-lifer has made a valid argument that I have ever seen for why pregnancy should be a special exception. Not without trying to appeal to misogyny or religious dogma, at least, either of which instantly invalidates their argument completely.

This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.

On what legitimate grounds?

Again, no citation of misogyny or religious dogma, thanks. Any use of either instantly invalidates your argument.

And just to be clear; it's for two different reasons. Misogyny invalidates because it's just shitty hatred and abuse. Religion invalidates because it doesn't apply to anyone not of your religion, or who chooses for themselves to not abide by those restrictions of your shared faith even if they do. Just completely irrelevant to the question. I'm trying to be clear so no one claims I'm equating the two.

As pertains to the my post, the past debates in this thread involved "no doctor is going to do that" respecting late-term abortion and extremely late-term abortion. I quoted from an interview with a doctor who was asked about whether he would perform an abortion on a pregnant woman with no health issues at 30 weeks. He replied that every pregnancy is a health issue.

And? He's correct. What's your issue?

Is it that you don't understand the health impacts of pregnancy? That the question was a bad one and you're upset about the honest answer?

If you have no particular attachment to whether or not elective abortions occur in the late term for prohibiting in law, then neither of those will matter to you.

Nope. Do not. Medical ethics already more than adequately covers the issue completely, and I have no idea why you'd want to insert restrictive legal jargon written by those without medical training and experience into the equation.

Thank you for helping me understand your moral perspective on it.

What, the "moral perspective" of protecting women from abusive attempts to deny them self-ownership and control over their own bodies? Or were you going to make a shitty, misleading attempt to construe supporting abortion rights as somehow "immoral"?

I think you'll find more than one person saying that "no doctor will do that" or thereabouts when I argued for banning late-term abortions with exceptions. The argument was that such laws were unnecessary, not because no woman would request it, but that no doctor would provide it. It was due to the existence of such posters in this very thread in the past that I linked the late-term abortionist interview.

I would be happy to learn if everyone posting that perspective at the time have since re-evaluated their perspective.

I still don't know what you think that even proves. It seems like all it's proven is that you really don't have a good grasp of how pregnancy affects women.

If the doctor's actions were unethical, medical review boards will handle it. If not, you're hand-wringing over nothing.

I would also assume that "medical ethical practices" do admit for elective late-term abortions, since every pregnancy is a health issue in the eyes of some doctors.

This is essentially you admitting to bad faith.

Your assumption is something you made up in your own head, rather than taking the time to look up ethical guidelines and standards and trying to actually inform yourself about the reality. You'd rather deal with your imaginary boogeymen than the truth. This is why no one should take your argument as a good-faith interaction.

I'd like the law to give guidance on "only to save the life of the mother" or "only because the fetus is unlikely to survive infancy/grow past childhood," particularly to respect the second body that's quite far developed in the late term.

Again, nobody cares about your religious views. They're not an argument here and instantly invalidate any rationalizing you're attempting.

[gondrin]

I don't think the time element to pregnancy and abortion lends itself towards making comparisons to organ donation or tumors or whatnot.

There will always be a second body in bodily autonomy arguments.

Yes, there is. However, when it comes to bodily autonomy, it doesn't matter what the second body wants. Hence, bodily AUTONOMY. It means that a person has the right to decide what they can or cannot have in their body. If a person wants to remove an organ, they should be able to do so REGARDLESS OF REASON. If a person wants to remove a fetus, they should be able to do so REGARDLESS OF REASON. Otherwise, we should MANDATE EVERYONE must get vaccines(you know, removal of bodily autonomy). We should MANDATE organ donation because IT SAVES LIVES.

Why is it when it comes to a fetus, bodily autonomy goes out the window for the mother but when it comes to vaccines or organ donation, it is my body, my choice. I would love to know the reasoning behind that though process other than some religious dogma or double standard nonsense.

This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.

Every pregnancy is a health risk to the mother and the fetus. It is literally the most dangerous thing a woman can have outside of certain professions that would put them in harms way.

[Rasulis]

I'm having trouble reconciling this post to the one you've responded to. The argument I was responding to was whether or not "doctors are in a better position to make the decisions than legislators." Whether or not that was true, or that it mattered to making laws. That involves more than just stating the existence of laws, or whether certain laws can be draconian, or have been inept. I don't even think the choice is every between trusting doctors and trusting legislators. Doctors continually are trusted to make decisions, while also being forced to abide by legal standards regarding (among other things) the standard of care and potential negligence in their duty. It would be about as absurd to say the laws and consequences are wrong, because they implicitly show distrust in doctors.

You should read up on "medical standard of care." There is no comparison between that and the southern states abortion laws. Here is a simplified version of the US "medical standard of care."

In medical malpractice cases, the standard of care definition is based on the customary practices of the average provider.

This means the healthcare provider’s actions (or inaction) are judged based on what a reasonably competent provider with the same level of training would have done under the circumstances. If the care provider’s actions were reasonable, based on what a similarly-trained professional would have done, then the provider is not considered to be negligent.

Because healthcare providers are compared against people with similar training, this means specialists are held to a higher standard than the average doctor. For example, an ER doctor who missed the symptoms of a heart problem may not necessarily be considered negligent while a cardiologist might be if the cardiologist missed the same symptoms.

In short, the standard of care is basically what a reasonably prudent similar healthcare provider would do under similar circumstances. In light of this, there is flexibility for the standard of care to be tailored to the specific circumstances, such as with an emergency or other disaster.

Not remotely comparable.

Ultimately, if I have to choose to entrust the health of my wife to either a doctor with 12 - 15 years medical training or jackass politicians trying to win elections, I pick the medical doctor every time.

[Ivanstone]

11 Notifications on my account for Christmas:

I responded specifically on the charge of relabeling. I know that in everybody's subjective appreciation, certain causes have no right to the label. And in your own mind, you could say the brand ought to be called anything from pro-terrorist to anti-human-existence. But when you're commenting publicly, you have the choice to use the terms each other would prefer to describe their position (or the commonly accepted ones), or pick your own for them. My only comment is the past history of the thread, when people said I had no right to say "pro-aborts," and or that I ought to say "pro-choice." My response was that no such courtesy has been extended to my side of the debate, so I'll continue uses such terms as I think fit the situation.

I'm not relabelling.

I'm accurately stating their actions. The pro-death party does nothing but create more death despite very loudly proclaiming how much they love fetuses. But they don't love fetuses. Their actions create more dead fetuses.

Barre Seid coughed up $1.5B to seat a bunch of pro-death judges. That money could've been better spent advocating for better maternal care, better sex education and other alternatives to abortion. I give you a pretty decent list of things that they could do but you'd rather whine about some "label".

[gondrin]

I'm not relabelling.

I'm accurately stating their actions. The pro-death party does nothing but create more death despite very loudly proclaiming how much they love fetuses. But they don't love fetuses. Their actions create more dead fetuses.

Barre Seid coughed up $1.5B to seat a bunch of pro-death judges. That money could've been better spent advocating for better maternal care, better sex education and other alternatives to abortion. I give you a pretty decent list of things that they could do but you'd rather whine about some "label".

The biggest irony to the "pro-life" movement, I mean, anti-abortion movement is the fact they refuse to want to teach proper sex education so they will ALWAYS have higher pregnancy rates. Hate to be the bearer of bad news to all pro-life people, teenagers will have sex. Teaching them both the good and the bad that comes with having sex, along with knowing how to prevent pregnancy like using a condom(either male or female) or other contraceptives, would go a LONG way to REDUCING abortions outright.

Funny thing is, a lot of people who are pro-choice are not pro-abortion. They are for the ability to choose what you can and cannot have in their body. You know, the ultimate freedom. All other freedoms, like the ability to speak out against something, the ability to defend oneself or one's own property, comes from the ability to decide what you can and cannot do what yourself. Even if that means that someone else doesn't get help, or in the case of a fetus or someone needing an organ, the outright death of said being.

[RampageBW1]

The biggest irony to the "pro-life" movement, I mean, anti-abortion movement is the fact they refuse to want to teach proper sex education so they will ALWAYS have higher pregnancy rates. Hate to be the bearer of bad news to all pro-life people, teenagers will have sex. Teaching them both the good and the bad that comes with having sex, along with knowing how to prevent pregnancy like using a condom(either male or female) or other contraceptives, would go a LONG way to REDUCING abortions outright.

My cynical side tells me that the idea is not to "prevent the need for abortion" but rather to force women to have consequences for having sex. A lot of them have come out wanting to ban Contraceptives as well. And I bet dollars to donuts that if Condoms didn't protect against STDs that they'd want to band Condoms too.

[s_bushido]

My cynical side tells me that the idea is not to "prevent the need for abortion" but rather to force women to have consequences for having sex. A lot of them have come out wanting to ban Contraceptives as well. And I bet dollars to donuts that if Condoms didn't protect against STDs that they'd want to band Condoms too.

There's nothing cynical about it... That's exactly what it is. And it's quite literally Catholic policy to ban condoms, last I heard. Obviously protestants/evangelicals wouldn't care what the Vatican has to say, but the religious right in this country follows the same regressive playbook whenever it suits them.

[Karreck]

My cynical side tells me that the idea is not to "prevent the need for abortion" but rather to force women to have consequences for having sex. A lot of them have come out wanting to ban Contraceptives as well. And I bet dollars to donuts that if Condoms didn't protect against STDs that they'd want to band Condoms too.

The Anti-Abortion movement has always been about controlling women.

[Adamas102]

It's the rest of the unquoted part of my post that explain what I mean by this.

No, it doesn't because as pointed out your post is rife with ignorance and/or lies. If you don't even understand the concepts then you can't use them to back up fallacious arguments. The points below continue to prove that you're either too dense to comprehend some fairly simple points or you just don't mind that your position is predicated on ignorance because you continually push lies and misinformation.

If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.

It's not an opinion that every pregnancy is a health risk (not in quotations), it's simply a fact. Therefore it is neither logical nor reasonable to object.

I think you'll find more than one person saying that "no doctor will do that" or thereabouts when I argued for banning late-term abortions with exceptions. The argument was that such laws were unnecessary, not because no woman would request it, but that no doctor would provide it. It was due to the existence of such posters in this very thread in the past that I linked the late-term abortionist interview.

Again, you continue to reference that interview without even realizing that it contradicts your ridiculous position. Maybe you need to read the article again? Or maybe you never read it to begin with. Can you just not wrap your head around the fact that even your boogieman abortionist doctor has a cutoff that's well before full term because he *gasp* takes into account the safety and health of his patients? Can that fact sink in or are you going to continue making a fool of yourself by saying "up until birth"?

- - - Updated - - -

My only comment is the past history of the thread, when people said I had no right to say "pro-aborts," and or that I ought to say "pro-choice." My response was that no such courtesy has been extended to my side of the debate, so I'll continue uses such terms as I think fit the situation.

Sure, but lets at least be accurate. "Pro-safe aborts" works since that's what the pro-choice side advocates for by putting the decisions in the hands of trained professionals working with their patients. Meanwhile, you can be labeled "pro-unsafe aborts" since that's what the legislation that you wish to push leads to.

"Pro-aborts" doesn't work since abortion is simply a reality of our human condition. You wouldn't call someone who is in favor of criminal law "pro-crime", right? It has been around for thousands of years, far longer than the christofascists that want nothing more than to place more restrictions of women and sex. While I wish we lived in an ideal world where no one ever felt the need to get an abortion, that's not the reality we live in. You're either in favor of safe abortion or in favor of unsafe abortion.

[Gigantique]

It's his shtick. All he's interested in, is trying to gotcha people in his endless quest for purely partisan tit for tat fodder.

I respond to him mostly for the sake of whoever reads the forums but doesn't post. It's likely an empty gesture either way, but there's no conversation to be had with someone who is this absolutely determined to prove to all how Democrats are the true bad guys.

Nah I'm one of those who mostly read and rarely post, I channel my own public service while on the shitter into dunking on rude idiots with a barebones (if at all) comprehension of critical thinking in FB comments instead so take it from me that there is definite value in you guys making it crystal clear just how disingenuous and faulty some of our resident posters.

[Levelfive]

This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.

"If." And "health risk" in scare quotes, just to bring his rank ignorance home, apparently. <chef's kiss> These are the kinds of people who think they should be making women's health care and reproductive choices for them--men so ignorant they think the FACT that every pregnancy is a health risk is some kind of trick for women to sneak in casual third trimester abortions, and also too ignorant to know there's no such thing as a casual third trimester abortion, not that it's any of his fucking business. The arrogance and ignorance is vast and staggering, and a prime example of why he and men and women like him have no business anywhere near these decisions.

There's only a handful of facilities in the US that perform them, and they cost thousands and thousands of dollars. And we know tehdang doesn't actually care, because if he and his pro-death friends cared about preventing third trimester abortions, they'd stop putting up so many obstacles to women getting first trimester abortions.

"In this article, I examine the specific case of third‐trimester abortion, defined as abortions that take place at or after 24 weeks LMP. Third‐trimester abortion care in the United States is substantially different from first‐trimester abortion care. First, abortion in the first trimester is most available in the United States, with approximately 780 outpatient facilities providing such care, although access varies considerably by geography. 3 However, as gestation increases the number of facilities decreases. There are only four facilities that publicly advertise care after 24 weeks LMP. 4 This scarcity is in part an effect of state‐level gestation‐based bans. A total of 44 states generally prohibit abortion in the third trimester. 5 Although these bans typically have exceptions, they are so narrow that few cases fall under them. Further, only one of these four facilities is located in a major urban center. To obtain a third‐trimester abortion, then, pregnant people must travel, accruing attendant travel costs for transportation, accommodations, and food, which can represent a substantial burden. 6

Second, third‐trimester abortion care is distinct in its cost. In 2020, while first‐trimester abortions had an average cost of $644 for medication abortion and $715 for aspiration abortion and the average cost of a second‐trimester abortion was $1068, 7 third‐trimester abortions cost much more: they range in cost from a few thousand dollars to over $25,000, depending on gestation and clinical complexity. Third‐trimester abortions typically take place over 3 days and can include laboring, which contributes to their high cost. Federal and state‐level bans on public insurance coverage in 34 states 8 and regulation of 9 or high deductibles in 10 private insurance mean that most people must pay out‐of‐pocket for abortion care. Given research that finds that the out‐of‐pocket costs of a first‐trimester abortion strain the finances of many abortion patients, 11 the cost of a third‐trimester abortion likely exceeds the financial capacity of most pregnant people."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9321603/

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

This is an important point for the debate around exceptions. If you consider every pregnancy a "health risk" and are crafting exemptions for law based on "health risk" or "health," then it's logical to point out that reasonable people can object to that exemption as carte blanch in the law.

There is nothing to consider. Every pregnancy is a health risk. That's just a fact. Women still die during childbirth.

It's logical to point out that reasonable people should be able to decide whether they want to take that risk on for themselves.

[Lenonis]

I don't think the time element to pregnancy and abortion lends itself towards making comparisons to organ donation or tumors or whatnot.

why not? Do people who need transplants or infusions have unlimited time? You made the case that in a few months the pregnancy issue is resolved (which is grossly neglecting the issues and complications that can happen at birth). If a patient doesn't get a transplant they die. I thought every life is sacred? And we should do everything to save a life?

There will always be a second body in bodily autonomy arguments.

so why is abortion the only case where you don't honor the bodily autonomy of the first person?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Sorry to dump it all on you, Evil Midnight Bomber, but that's the clarity that my short vacation from this forum has provided me.

Yeah, all I was really trying to say that he should have been the one to take the vacation...not you. All he does is engage in bad faith posting and the moderators seem uninterested in holding him accountable. Everyone else has to be on their best behaviour...but he gets a free pass.

[Captain N]

Yeah, all I was really trying to say that he should have been the one to take the vacation...not you. All he does is engage in bad faith posting and the moderators seem uninterested in holding him accountable. Everyone else has to be on their best behaviour...but he gets a free pass.

I have noted this as well. Especially in the Israel thread. We've had no less than three posters infracted/banned for pushing misinformation yet folks like him have continued to do that across numerous threads and nothing happens. It's almost like we've had a return of Thwart to our politics forum.

[Sunseeker]

I suspect it has something to do with his word salad approach. Wrap it around a bunch of words that people have to read 3 or 4 times over to get the meaning, and unless the mods are following word-for-word, it's not obvious. Most likely intentional on his part.

It's the "reasonable conserative troll" approach, and it's a common tactic used to draw people into conspiracy circles.

[tehdang]

1) Translating "I'm a terrible person" into as many word-salads as possible ...
Now don't get me wrong, there's a person behind this experiment. We've all seen him appear to go off-script ...
Firstly, "understanding" is a concept that seems foreign to him ...
Secondly, "compassion" seems foreign to him ...

Ordinarily, such dehumanization rhetoric, psychoanalysis of strangers on the internet, and justification thereof would be exceptional. But this is the topic of abortion, and it comes with the turf. And like your previous post, this feels like its cathartic to you, a kind of "hate on the other" to bring some internal feeling of satisfaction. I don't know your life, or where such indulging truly comes from.

Doesn't seem very compassionate to me, if we are to believe his preferred legislation is meant to be objectively compassionate.

What you quoted was on a doctor that refused to state, in her medical judgment, whether the pregnancy was life-threatening to the mother, and certain amicus briefs and reporting suggests that the real concern was the viability of the unborn baby. This is a factual contention. But if you see too much of the world through the lens of "these people are evil, those that are arguing this position," then you're essentially falling victim to combing through posts to justify your prejudices.

I also know I'm advancing a marginal viewpoint, and am not likely to persuade the larger in-group that they should abandon many closely-held opinions (in your terms, they're not "willing to be enlightened" and are "using knowledge as a weapon.")

You had a really poor use of logic in your post. Your justification for not "willing to be enlightened" is a priori assumption that someone changing their opinions as a result of discussion of this forum is proof of enlightenment, and if the opinions remain mostly unchanged, that's proof of not willing to be enlightened. This can't really be your true argument, because that would mean most of this forum isn't willing to be enlightened from my perspective.

And "using knowledge as a weapon" appears to be a coarse way to assert that only dumb people think as you do, or you only have compassion for the pro-life side in the proportion that you can pity them for being unintelligent.

These opinions of mine are subject to change, but I don't feel like doing internet stranger psychoanalysis, and taking this personal, is a ripe and productive subject for forum threads.

but you gotta show us the better way. There's no shame in trusting doctors that spend an entire decade+ learning about this subject. There's no shame in trusting women to make the right decisions about their bodies and futures. Show us where we should be ashamed. Show us where this "dogma" you refer to is misguided. At least my side has standing to shame the pro-life position. The opposite is not true.

I'm pointing out the flaws in this perspective, and arguing for my preferred alternative. It's basically doctors and legislators working together to craft legislation that covers life-threatening conditions and severe fetal anomalies, as an absolute ton of people assert will just happen and won't change anything. But I'd like to put a little bit of this in your terms in order to make my point.

There's no shame in pointing out that doctors sometimes make mistakes, individually or as a group, and existing laws act as a backstop already in others areas.
There's no shame in pointing out that criminalizing behavior happens all the time in marginal cases, like infanticide and child neglect, that don't exist just to punish vulnerable populations or stigmatize something.
There's no shame in wanting post-viable unborn babies to have their rights preserved beyond only existing so long as the mother wants it. There's no shame in asking that these be balanced against each other, instead of the mother's rights having automatic preeminence, and her child's no concern beyond what she wishes to give.

we should avoid "personal and emotional diagnosis stuff". I'm sorry, but no, I can't avoid him and allow this behavior unchecked, or avoid the emotional undertones in this thread. By virtue of living in the state of Alabama, my daughter and 3 nieces are at risk. 2 of which are under 18 and not sufficiently mature enough to understand the ramifications of childbirth, yet their bodies are perfectly capable of producing a child anyway.

I understand that this subject has very personal and emotional attachment. If you need more pro-life media to humanize and emotionally justify the feelings of the pro-life side, including mothers who regret or felt pressured into abortions, and children who were accidentally born as a result of a botched abortion, then I can point you to some. Remember, just because some of us here don't post intensely emotional and personal vignettes, doesn't mean they're an uncaring and uncompassionate caricature of a person. It's in part to respect the intense feeling that lies just below the surface to keep much of this discussion centered on rights, and laws, and justifications. Nobody's really helped when somebody yells that the other guy is incapable of understanding or lacks compassion, and the other party cites that as justification to make similar accusations right back. It's just a vicious cycle of embittering the debate and objectivizing the opposition.

[Elegiac]

There's no shame in

Not to interrupt, but being sufficiently stupid so as to not understand that criminalizing marginal behavior is a matter of cost versus benefit and not "we do it sometimes therefore it's always okay" is in fact shameful.

Just as it's shameful to pretend to be ignorant of the fact that banning abortion makes it easier for women to get pressured into terminating a pregnancy and makes children being born after botched abortion attempts more likely.

[Adamas102]

There's no shame in wanting post-viable unborn babies to have their rights preserved beyond only existing so long as the mother wants it. There's no shame in asking that these be balanced against each other, instead of the mother's rights having automatic preeminence, and her child's no concern beyond what she wishes to give.

And as long as you continue to ignore the fact that the abortions you’re talking about aren’t taken lightly the way that you imply, you’ll continue to be rightfully branded a bad faith poster. Abortions at that stage are very rare, expensive, risky, and never just a matter of “oh, the mother just didn’t want it”.

[Endus]

What you quoted was on a doctor that refused to state, in her medical judgment, whether the pregnancy was life-threatening to the mother, and certain amicus briefs and reporting suggests that the real concern was the viability of the unborn baby. This is a factual contention. But if you see too much of the world through the lens of "these people are evil, those that are arguing this position," then you're essentially falling victim to combing through posts to justify your prejudices.

Frankly, we examine your arguments to find the base principles upon which you base those arguments, and when we see those base principles for what they are, that's when we can judge your character. Because the base principles behind all pro-life rhetoric boil down to a deep-seated hatred for women, a desire to dehumanize them and deny them self-ownership, and a desire to enforce some niche religious dogma upon non-believers with the strength of the government's legal system behind that dogma.

I'm comfortable labelling such premises as "evil". You're not considered an enemy first and then misinterpreted, you're interpreted correctly and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that your intent is malicious.

You had a really poor use of logic in your post. Your justification for not "willing to be enlightened" is a priori assumption that someone changing their opinions as a result of discussion of this forum is proof of enlightenment, and if the opinions remain mostly unchanged, that's proof of not willing to be enlightened. This can't really be your true argument, because that would mean most of this forum isn't willing to be enlightened from my perspective.

I've repeatedly expressed my willingness to "be enlightened". That I've asked this of most staunch pro-lifers I've encountered. The problem is that I expect such "enlightenment" to meet some very basic qualifications. That argument must;

1> Not dehumanize women.
2> Be secular, not religious in nature, as religious arguments are only voluntarily agreed to by believers.
3> Be logically consistent.

And that's it. That's all you've gotta bring to the table.

I've literally never seen a pro-life argument that did not utterly fail to meet those basic expectations. Your "enlightenment" seems to be . . . anything but "enlightened".

I'm pointing out the flaws in this perspective, and arguing for my preferred alternative. It's basically doctors and legislators working together to craft legislation that covers life-threatening conditions and severe fetal anomalies, as an absolute ton of people assert will just happen and won't change anything. But I'd like to put a little bit of this in your terms in order to make my point.

Why?

Explain to me why medical ethical standards are insufficient to the task. Don't point to unethical acts that slip by and are caught after the fact, either; laws only ever serve to penalize law-breakers in the first place, so a law doesn't actually prevent unethical abortions any more than ethical standards already do.

There's no shame in pointing out that doctors sometimes make mistakes, individually or as a group, and existing laws act as a backstop already in others areas.
There's no shame in pointing out that criminalizing behavior happens all the time in marginal cases, like infanticide and child neglect, that don't exist just to punish vulnerable populations or stigmatize something.

Medical ethics boards already cover all this, when it comes to abortion.

There's no shame in wanting post-viable unborn babies to have their rights preserved beyond only existing so long as the mother wants it. There's no shame in asking that these be balanced against each other, instead of the mother's rights having automatic preeminence, and her child's no concern beyond what she wishes to give.

This is word salad that means nothing.

Again, this boils down to the basic conflict between whether right to life of Person A ever supercedes the bodily autonomy of Person B. In literally every other imaginable instance, the answer to that conflict is "no, right to life never trumps someone else's bodily autonomy". The onus lies on you and others to justify why the specific case of ending a pregnancy should be an exception to that standard. Without turning to religious dogma.

And this is if we grant that the fetus is a person, which is steelmanning your argument. We're being as generous as it is reasonable possible to be, here, and pro-life arguments fail to pass the simplest hurdles.

I understand that this subject has very personal and emotional attachment. If you need more pro-life media to humanize and emotionally justify the feelings of the pro-life side, including mothers who regret or felt pressured into abortions, and children who were accidentally born as a result of a botched abortion, then I can point you to some.

Why on earth would any of that be useful? It's all just a naked appeal to emotion over reason. That's not an argument. It's deceptive and misleading, intentionally so.

Remember, just because some of us here don't post intensely emotional and personal vignettes, doesn't mean they're an uncaring and uncompassionate caricature of a person. It's in part to respect the intense feeling that lies just below the surface to keep much of this discussion centered on rights, and laws, and justifications. Nobody's really helped when somebody yells that the other guy is incapable of understanding or lacks compassion, and the other party cites that as justification to make similar accusations right back. It's just a vicious cycle of embittering the debate and objectivizing the opposition.

You've yet to give us any reason to consider pro-life arguments legitimate. Sure, maybe you've got me on ignore, but it's because I keep asking for you to justify your claims, and you just will not do so. Which is fine, but I'm going to keep pointing out to everyone else here that you're not playing fair.