It DOES defy common sense. There seem to be a lot of stumbling over definitions, which normally is a red flag for bullshit. There are more than one kind of abortion. Not my wheelhouse and certainly I feel that it should be between a woman and her doctor, but to my casual understanding, an abortion is termination of pregnancy to a fetus that is not developed enough to be viable if delivered.
There are spontaneous abortions, loss of a fetus triggered by the body of a woman whose body is dealing with a problem with the pregnancy or other health issue, which sometimes happens before the woman even knows she is pregnant. There are also induced abortions, in which an unviable or dead fetus or one determined to not be in the woman's physical or mental health interests are ended in a clinical setting. Not a choice to be made by anyone other than the woman and her health care professional.
If the fetus is of viable age, then a loss of the fetus is can be called a stillbirth. Most religions only consider it a new member of their cult if it is a live birth, and not before. This is where the debate descends into scientific definitions that have to satisfy religious dogma. All of which most of us believe are not proper places to inject politics.
I don't know of anyone who thinks aborting fetuses is a good method of birth control, but having the option is what the whole debate is about.
I would liken it to if there is a belief that prostate enlargement can lead to bad health outcomes, that the government could mandate castration if there is an enlarged prostate to mitigate the hormone production that contributes to it. Ridiculous, but doesn't seem so ridiculous when compared to mandating idiotic pregnancy laws.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
