So the very first argument in the OP is the one about rape and incest victims. But I shouldn’t give a flying donut about that.
Bullshit. If the argument is this is a stupid and damaging law, then why the emphasis on rape and incest victims? I’ll tell you why: because that is intended to garner opposition from people who might otherwise have no problem with the law.
But no – I’m supposed to ignore that, ignore the high-school debate club tactics myself, because I’m a smart guy. I must fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules while the other side uses a wrench, a folding chair, and a 2x4 on my head while the referee is looking away.
Nope.
The introduction of rape and incest victims is a ploy; they are a vanishingly tiny percentage of abortion-seeking women, and, as my question demonstrates, irrelevant to the objection, since not one of you that is inveighing against this law would change your opposition if the rape and incest exception were added. It is, in short, a dishonest attack.
So, what else you got? The law is “stupid” and “potentially damaging?”