Your previous reply said, and I quote, "Because as far as I am aware absolutely nobody is advocating for late term abortions."

The reply before that said, and I quote, "No, there is no-one advocating for late term abortions."

Two replies before that you said, and I quote, "It's completely and totally irrelevant when life begins," and, "So WTF should it be legal to force anyone to preserve the life of someone else at the expense of their body autonomy?" This argument is an argument for late-term abortion and you made it yourself! (You later retracted the conclusion that must be drawn on the basis of this argument when you stated that you agreed with the viability cutoff. As stated, though, this argument applies with full force to late-term abortions--a C-section or induced labor is way more intrusive than a blood draw.)

You never said that the positions were "so rare as to be inconsequential" and indeed did the opposite multiple times (as I quote above).

I freely and cheerfully admit to intransigently insisting that what people say matters. If you communicate poorly or deviously, it is not the stupidity of the reader that is at fault when you are misunderstood. It's you.

Fortunately, the results in Kansas suggest that there is sufficient support for abortion so that we may be able to preserve abortion rights without needing to persuade many additional moderates. I am rather mystified how you think what you're doing here helps rather than hurts, though, given the context.