When Dancova's main point seems to be, "You'll get a lot more support if you sound like what you want is reasonable," I'm not sure your tactic of leaping to the most egregious cases where abortion restrictions are causing the greatest harm is very helpful.

Nor is the tactic of dismissing and ignoring the diversity of opinion that he explicitly brought up. I mean--you're doing exactly what he said was offputting, by bringing up only the cases where abortion opponents are deeply hypocritical but ignoring the cases he gave to you where they're not.

"A raped 10 year old needs to be able to get an emergency abortion; therefore, abortions should be 100% the call of the woman, irrespective of what doctors think, at any time during pregnancy," simply doesn't follow. But if that isn't the position (and reasoning), it sure isn't spelled out--indeed, there are hints that you don't think there could be any other position ("What kind of 'middle ground' is he imagining").

It's the same kind of bombastically extreme and illogical rhetoric that Republicans use about...well..a lot of stuff, like border control. ("Here is one example where an illegal immigrant brutally raped and murdered someone. Therefore, the border needs to be outfitted with arrays of motion-detecting machine guns to keep these criminals out." Like...no? That is not the only possible response to an actually tragic situation?)

Dancova's point is: this kind of stuff pushes people away. Is he wrong? If so, why? Why not argue that instead of embodying an example of the kind of approach he's criticizing?